Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

"Impeach George W. Bush and Richard Cheney. Impeach them today. For this, along with their other high crimes and misdemeanors."

For what? Not having "nuked" soon enough? You have really gone off the deep end Brad.

By your logic, attacking in North Africa and Egypt, and then Italy, was an impeachable offense. You military reasoning is worthy of Lee at his worse (at Gettyburg, when Old Pete told him to swing around his right flank (the Union left), Lee said NO and the rest is history.

As a life long democrat who understands a little bit of history, I am ready and support killing off about 20% of the adult male population of the Arab/Muslim world (historically this is what is takes for democracy to take hold (the South, Germany, Japan). Are you?

One hopes that the intelligence that found this out is better than the intelligence that took us to war in Iraq.

Moe:

"By your logic, attacking in North Africa and Egypt, and then Italy, was an impeachable offense."

If you recall history (which I doubt), the US fought German soldiers there. Because Germany had forces in N. Africa and Italy - before the US got there; another point of departure from the Iraq War.

"As a life long democrat..."

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggghhhhhhhhhht.

Two things I never believe - "I'm a lifelong Democrat" from a rightwinger and "I'm a libertarian" from a rightwinger.

Brad writes: And where is our counterstrike against the Iranian government?

Have you missed your medication again? Even the article you cited says "The report does not, however, offer evidence that Iran was aware of the plans for the 9/11 attacks." You do not even need to see the report before calling for "counterstrike" against Iran?

Don't forget that in the 1990s, Halliburton, with Dick Cheney as CEO, was one of the principal supporters of lifting the embargo on Iran so that U.S. energy companies could get a part of the lucrative oil business there. It should surprise no one that the Administration left Iran alone.

Brad,

You are way off base here. You want to invade Iran because AlQaeda personnel went through there according to a US "Intelligence" claim.

What about Pakistan, the country that created the Taleban? Musharaf deposed the democratic govt. because it was trying to close down support for terrorism.

Lets fight the real enemies of the US here, not the ones that the Bush admin wants to target for its own reasons.

We don't need to invade Iran, the hardline clique around Khameini and Rafsanjani is about as beloved as Mussolini in Italy in 1944.

The Pasdaran ( Revo. Guards), Ansar Hezbollah ( the street thugs)and the extremists who sit on the Guardian and Expediency Councils are our enemies, not the Iranians themselves. We need Desert Fox plus a little Afghan Freedom, not Desert Storm III.

Reading through the lines here, it's clear that the Good Professor is not, in fact, advocating a strike on Iran.

Rather, he is pointing out the illogic of making a big stink about a marginal and murky relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda while ignoring a far more advanced relationship between Iran and Al Qaeda. i believe the relevant expression is "hoisting him on his own petard."

I think, praktike gets it right. Brad simply points out that on the basis of arguments defending Shrubbie's Iraq policy, the US would have to declare war on Iran, and dozens of other countries. Pointing out that an argument leads to absurd conclusions does not mean that the argument was correct. On the contrary!

So, I guess that were we to follow through with the Bush Doctrine™, we need to turn those divisions already in Iraq Eastward.

But then the Iraq invasion was wasn't really about that was it.

three countries recognized the taliban as legitimate: Pakistan, Sudan, and Saudi. Iran kept the Northern Alliance alive before we got there. Further, Iran has arrested members of al qaeda and returned them to their native country (Saudi) where we can presume they were released to go about their business.

Reading through the lines here, it's clear that the Good Professor is not, in fact, advocating a strike on Iran.

agreed, just a little thought experiment for hawks.

Iran had a very rocky relationship with the Taliban and Afghanistan, especially after the Iranian diplomats were killed. I cannot see the Iranians not knowing the connections between bin Laden and the Taliban given their long border with Afghanistan.

^^I am ready and support killing off about 20% of the adult male population of the Arab/Muslim world (historically this is what is takes for democracy to take hold (the South, Germany, Japan). Are you?^^

That's very brave of you little Adolf. Is that your final answer (solution)?

Iran and Russia funded the Northern Alliance for years while we did nothing. But that doesn't mean they're a great bunch of guys. At the same time, they were funding Hizb'allah's activities in Lebanon, which included training Al Qaeda in bomb-making, and collaborated with AQ in the Khobar Towers bombing. So don't mistake their anti-support of the Taliban for anti-support of Al Qaeda. The AQ people are there as diplomatic leverage.

The really key fact here is that the Mullahs are also about to acquire the Bomb. This new item is the very last piece of evidence needed that Iran was always a more urgent target for us than Iraq.

Really, though, when you have a president who actually brags that "I don't do nuance" -- that is, brags about how stupid he is -- does anyone in their right mind expect rational strategy from him? I can't think of another president (at least since Andrew Johnson) who ever did that. Not even Harding and Nixon.

By the title I thought you were referring to Krugman's forthcoming economics textbook.

By the title I thought you were referring to Krugman's forthcoming economics textbook.

"We do not negotiate with terrorists." -- G.W. Bush (passim)

Perhaps the Iranians are blackmailing the Bush family by threatening to reveal that Jr represented his father in conspiring to prevent release of the hostages prior to the election. Since forty marines died at Desert One, that's a capital charge.
On the other hand, perhaps Jr and Sr did nothing of the kind and the Iranians aren't being attacked because...

How can anyone imagine that Shia Iran would help Sunni Al Quada? What should be their interest to do so?

The whole report is to set the mental condition to start a conflict in Iraq. In October Israel will attack, with US support, Iranin nuclear infrastructure. Iran will fight back in Iraq and by attacking US ships in the Gulf (of Tonkin). The seven Carrier Groups currently off China to warn the Chinese will at that time be in the area and bomb the hell out of Iran in revange. The electorate will rush to Bushies help and he will win the election.

Easy to pull off.

Moe Levine:

"...killing off about 20% of the adult male population of the Arab/Muslim world (historically this is what is takes for democracy to take hold (the South, Germany, Japan)."

That is a fascinating factoid, (a lot of information packed into a sentence) and I would like to thank you for providing it.

It probably won't happen, but wouldn't it be hilarious if Iran exploded a nuclear bomb before the US elections? It wouldn't even have to really be theirs; a mail-order one would be just as impressive...

Barry write, "Because Germany had forces in N. Africa and Italy ---

Barry: Are there no Muslim enemies of Democracy in Iraq? Who has been doing all the shootings, bombings, etc., since the war ended?

Moeron, writes:

"That's very brave of you little Adolf. Is that your final answer (solution)?"

Like Lincoln, Roosevelt and Truman and many great generals, my solution for those who oppose democracy is to kill them, quickly, if need be.

We caused far more death and destruction in the South to end slavery than we have caused by invading Iraq. Was the Civil War justified? If so, on what basis? Was WWI or WWII justified? Is so, on what basis? Do these principles no longer have force?

Interesting, so the implication of the post appears to be that if the United States is not prepared to oppose tyranny or hunt down every terrorist all at the same time then we should simply do nothing. Or maybe it is part of the debate about whats worse godless totalitarian communism or repressive theocractic facism.

As for the oil implications I believe that when Iran was included in the Axis of evil the Europeans almost shat themselves. One can only imagine that the French (who have no sanctions against Iran) would have deployed troops to defend their Iranian oil fields rather than let them fall into the hands of Halliburton.

I find the disbelief about the right wing libertarian comment very amusing. I guess I have an equally hard time believing in a left wing libertarian. Almost as hard to believe in a left winger who holds for a limited government role in economics as a right winger who believes in a limited role of the government in the bedroom.

Moe: a) Yes, the Civil War was justified, but not on humanitarian grounds but, rather, on grounds that it was an insurrection against the duly elected government of the United States. b) No, WWI was not justified. We had no business getting involved in a European war. All we managed to do was make Europe safe for Hitler and Mussolini and help Russia go Communist. c) Yes, WWII was justified, because we were attacked by Japan and had Germany and Italy declare war against us. d) I think you're getting the general gist. The purpose of the U.S. Army is to protect our nation, not to go liberate peoples. Where things have worked out well (WWII and to a certain extent the Civil War) is cases where our nation was attacked by enemies either external or external. Where things have not worked out so well (e.g. the Spanish-American War or WWI) is where we were not attacked but, rather, made war for ideological reasons.

Iraq did not attack the United States, and did not have the capability to attack the United States. There were no practical reasons for attacking Iraq, only ideological ones. And that, in the end, is why Iraq is such a cheneying mess. When you cheney around with nations that you have no business cheneying with, what you get is a cheneying fiasco.

- Badtux the Practical Penguin

Just to keep score, Iran's government agrees that several of al-Qaeda's bad guys passed through its territory. They say a long border makes such activity hard to prevent.

Not to ignore the call for killing millions of people (no war ever just killed the men folk) who disagree with us, of course. We really need to keep the scope of various events in mind. How many people, civilian and military, had died due to the aggressive acts of the German and Japanese militaries prior to the US involving itself in WW2? How much of the German and Japanese populace was mobilized to support the war effort? Was the US not attacked directly by Japan prior to entering the war? We have not, to my knowledge, been attacked by any government in the Mideast. We have been attacked by terrorists. Those terrorists have supporters in all muslim countries, but they do not have the support of any muslim country of which I am aware. The long history of thinking on just war does not countenance attacking any country which does not present a direct threat to us. So what we are really hearing is "let's kill millions of men, women and children, because Moe says it's all right." Not a strong ethical argument.

An utterly fatuous argument. Iran is a much tougher nut than Iraq and, a subtle strategy is called for there. But, you Dems have never been strong on subtlety, have you? Because that takes the brains you lack. We do not have a one-size-fits-all foreign policy, kids, for good reason.

Unless it is the Dem-Kerry type of foreign policy, which can be summed up in four easy steps:

1) Appease
2) Retreat
3) Spin
4) Repeat

We couldn't do anything to Iran with Saddam's Iraq on our flank. Now we've cleared out Iraq we're past due to put Iran's nuclear facilities permanently out of business. The resulting disorder would most likely mark the end of theocratic rule and the beginning of a second arab democracy.

Invade Iran?

With what troops?

And had we hit Iran first, and left Iraq alone, then how would you support an assault?

You couldn't do it out of Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. Their governments would never allow that.

You couldn't use the Afghanistan model. It's far too light.

You'd have a hard time crossing the Shat-al-Arab from Kuwait, in any case. The terrain is terrible for US mech.

No, an invasion of Iran is logistically impossible without having first taken Iraq and building up a base of operations there.

You just more evidence why the left is fundamentally unserious.

Why Iraq? Why not Iran?

How foolish, but this is the latest bs line.

Oh, you mean preemption don't you? But I thought preemption wasn't a good idea?

Do you think France, Germany and Russia would happily join us this time? Don't want to be unilateral now, do we?

P.S. France has contracts with Iran that exceed a half trillion dollars.

I think people are still trying to downplay the fact that there IS/WAS a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda (except in the case of 9/11). More and more documents are coming into light that prove this. I think people still want to turn a blind eye because everyone has been swearing up and down that there is no connection.

The other thing I don't understand is that people who are against the "War on Terror" and unseating despots and such have no problem saying, "Hey, we should be focusing our efforts on these guys, they had a little connection too," while at the same time saying, "Hey, what the hell are we doing over there? This isn't our war to fight."

Which, if you pay close enough attention, is what Michael Moore says in his movie.

An attack against Iran will be much easier now since we can force them into a two front war, attacking from both Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe this has been the strategy all along.

We've done a pretty good job of surrounding potential trouble makers. Pakistan has the US on one side and India on the other. Iran has the US on two fronts. And Syria has the US and Israel on two fronts. Not a bad strategic maneuver.

Dave, you're kidding, right? You'd have to be nuts to think we could invade Iran now, and the Iranians know it.

And after the Iraqis kick us out in six months time, what then? No Iraq bases, no Saudi bases and a potentially a nuclear-armed Iran.

But the American people are safer! As long as we say it often enough.

Reid- isn't it amusing to see people bemoan Bush's "simplistic" black & white view of the world while simultaneously offering a "invade them all or invade none of them" view of the world? We invaded Iraq so we MUST invade Syria, Iran, Pakistan, etc.

(I'm not opposed to invading Iraq but it seems disingenuous to demand we do so after opposing the Iraq war for 1.5 years.)

Regarding Iran, Al Qaeda and Iraq, I wonder how much of this intel was gleaned as a direct result of the Iraq war. We never would've found out about the Khan Islamic bomb trade to Iran/Libya/Iraq.

And a lesson to be drawn from the comments above wrt Afghanistan, the taliban, al qaeda and other nations is that the relationships aren't so cut and dried as "they hate each other and would never work together" whether the parties be Al Qaeda and Iran, Al Qaeda and Hussein or Hussein and Iran or any other prominent middle eastern leaders.

There were many more reasons for the invasion of Iraq besides their involvement with terrorism. There were even some reasons that weren't used on the floor of the UN during Bush's year-long effort to secure international backing for Operation Iraqi Freedom, which I believe he did only because Tony Blair required it before he could commit forces to the conflict.

Many of these unused (but not unannounced) reasons have to do with the general reshaping of disfunctional Middle Eastern society *without* the use of significant military force. Snidely pointing out that Iran supports terrorism and that the administration hasn't been following up on its doctrine by blasting the country to bits only shows that the good professor is not interested in the fact that the campaign in Iraq is indeed very complex and (though I hesitate to say it given the word's recently aquired connotations) highly nuanced.

This, of course, doesn't fit at all with the professor's cut-and-dried perception about the president, which I suspect is something along the standard lines of Bush as the ignorant buffoon who is also, inexplicably, a mastermind of the vast right-wing conspiracy which is slowly taking over the world. The fact remains, however, and this is a really real true fact that is not a lie, that there were more than one or two reasons that caused the Bush administration to escalate hostilities in Iraq.

But everyone here has seen these arguments before, and no one will be convinced either way. Kind of hopeless, really. See you in November.

Brad, how do you come up with 1030?

By my calculation, as of July 19, 2004, we're 9001 days past due for a nuke strike on Iran.

(I'll wait here till people figure it out.)

The fact that Iran is a threat doesn't mean that Iraq wasn't also a threat. Bush told us that Iran is a threat, coining the phrase "axis of evil".

praktike says Prof DeLong is pointing out "illogic". More precisely, he's pointing out a supposed inconsistency. Bush took decisive military action against the Iraqi threat, but not against the Irani threat. A President Gore would not have have taken military against either threat. He would have been consistent, but both threats would still be there. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

Looking forward, do you think President Kerry or President Bush be more apt to take firm action against the remaining Iranian threat?

Good points, David. But, I would go one further and aver that as president, Gore would not even have taken action in Afghanistan. Which is not to say that the boys in Al Qaeda would not have gotten a strong rebuke from the UN. Possibly even a formal resolution. And, France and Germany would adore us.

"Dave, you're kidding, right? You'd have to be nuts to think we could invade Iran now, and the Iranians know it."

The Iranians know that they're just barely staving off armed rebellion in their country. They know that, unlike the US, the Brits invested substantial resources in human intel, a lot of it in Iran, giving us a very good view of what's happening on the ground. And they know we don't have to invade. Targeted strikes, from, I don't know, one of the neighboring countries where we have troops/assets, just enough to cripple the current regime's ability to respond, and the currrent structure would implode. So before that happens, it's in their best interest to moderate/negotiate. Either that or have Kerry elected.

"Two things I never believe - "I'm a lifelong Democrat" from a rightwinger and "I'm a libertarian" from a rightwinger."

Then you're an idiot. Simple demographics tell you that a substantial portion of the Democratic base is Southern, African American, and/or Christian, groups that skew conservative. If the people driving the party didn't share your arrogance and head-in-the-sand isolationism, then a lot more of us would still be "lifelong Democrats". We signed up for the party of social justice, not the party of consequence-free actions and never taking a moral stand.

No, an invasion of Iran is logistically impossible without having first taken Iraq and building up a base of operations there.

and tripling the size of the US forces in the area, genius. (iran has 70 million people). I'm too old to be drafted. You?

[i]We've done a pretty good job of surrounding potential trouble makers.[/i]

yeah, dear leaders moves to stop pakistani non-proliferation is a smashing success (an atom-smashing success, in fact!)

[i]We've done a pretty good job of surrounding potential trouble makers.[/i]

yeah, dear leaders moves to stop pakistani nuke proliferation is a smashing success (an atom-smashing success, in fact!)

Brad,

I am reminded of Jack N. in, "A Few Good Men."

When hard facts bring out posters like BadTux, there really is no point in posting.

More than 650,000 thousand Americans died in the Civil War. We kill 42,000 annually on unsafe highways. By comparison, Iraq is meaningless, which is not to say that it is not important.

Because all wars are great testing grounds, it has been useful as a working demonstration about how inept Bush happens to be. Heaven forbid is something serious came up.

If we can somehow help the Iranians to overthrow their own government the repercussions throughout the Islamic world would be incredibly positive.

If we try to remove the Iranian government on our own we have a nightmare scenerio that might convince many undecided Iranians to support their local boys no matter what and would certainly help radicalize the Islamic world.

Not a hard decision. The hard part is how do you support a faction in overthrowing their own government without really getting directly involved?

Not enough forces? Not really - it depends on the task. The number of forces need to occupy and police a large country like Iraq is not the same (i.e. is much larger) than the number needed to apply overwhelming force in full-scale combat against other regular millitary units. Which is something we are very good at - witness the quick collapse of Iraq's army.

Of course, the whole operational point to the build-up of Iraqi security forces and the hand-over is to free up our troops for other purposes. (The political point, of course, is to deliver on our promises, and to suck the air out of the insergency, which it is doing.)

So we could take them out if we didn't need to occupy them much afterwards. Because we certainly don't have the troops for *that* (right now). And considering the quality of the opposition within Iran, "occupation lite" might be doable.

But if there is still hope that all of that will be unnecessary - and if there is still time before things get too critical (a big if, true) - then indirect methods would probably be better all around.

This "senior U.S. official" works for the Commission, the Senate, the House, the White House, the CIA, the Education department, the Bureau of Engraving, the EPA, the FBI, Haliburton, the TSA, NPR, Department of Transportation, Homeland Security, the NEA, The Bush campaign, the Kerry campaign, or the Department of Agriculture ?
This is thin, this report is thinner than piss on a rock.

'We couldn't do anything to Iran with Saddam's Iraq on our flank. Now we've cleared out Iraq we're past due to put Iran's nuclear facilities permanently out of business. The resulting disorder would most likely mark the end of theocratic rule and the beginning of a second arab democracy. '

Only someone who thinks that Iran is Arabic would propose an idiotic idea like this. Lesson One: Iran is Persian, not Arabic. Lesson Two: An attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would make all sorts of anti-regime types flock to a patriotic anti-American banner and would lead to Iran unleashing a massive flood of attacks in Iraq, making stabilizing that country impossible.

'Looking forward, do you think President Kerry or President Bush be more apt to take firm action against the remaining Iranian threat? '

I see President Bush invading Syria rather than Iran because he can do it and because Iran might be too much of a tough nut to crack.

'I think people are still trying to downplay the fact that there IS/WAS a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda (except in the case of 9/11). More and more documents are coming into light that prove this. I think people still want to turn a blind eye because everyone has been swearing up and down that there is no connection'

What documents ? And how come given that we have every single IRaqi leader in jail, and have most IRaqi documents haven't we been abel to come up with any solid evidence ?

'But, I would go one further and aver that as president, Gore would not even have taken action in Afghanistan'

What must be why he said that he fully supported Bush's actions in Afhanistan.

'Regarding Iran, Al Qaeda and Iraq, I wonder how much of this intel was gleaned as a direct result of the Iraq war.'

I can answer that. Zero. The Butler Report (which you clearly haven't read) about British Intelligence goes into a lot of detail about the AQ Khan network.

'We never would've found out about the Khan Islamic bomb trade to Iran/Libya/Iraq. '

The Khan network had no connection to IRaq. And most of the Khan network was cracked through careful intelligence operations (read the report, with some major breakthroughs in early 2003). In fact, it was the Khan network that led us to Libya (again) rather than the other way around.

'An attack against Iran will be much easier now since we can force them into a two front war, attacking from both Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe this has been the strategy all along.'

Yup, I can see that. All it has cost us is 140K troops in Iraq and $200 billion. A bargain.

'We've done a pretty good job of surrounding potential trouble makers. Pakistan has the US on one side and India on the other. '

I didn't know that we could take credit for India's hostility towards Pakistan. And given that we've called Pakistan a major non-NATO ally, and have agreed to provide it with weapons, thats a strange way of surrounding someone.

'Unless it is the Dem-Kerry type of foreign policy, which can be summed up in four easy steps:

1) Appease
2) Retreat
3) Spin
4) Repeat'

Well, we can see the Bush policy in efect in North Korea.

1) Draw line in Sand
2) After North Korea has stepped over line, draw another line in the sand, continue
3) Finally agree to give North Korea essentially the same deal we had denounecd before Step one
4) Declare "Mission Accomplished"

'We invaded Iraq so we MUST invade Syria, Iran, Pakistan, etc. '

No, its pointing out the idiocy of wasting money, resources and goodwill on a bogus attack, while ignoring real threats.

'The Iranians know that they're just barely staving off armed rebellion in their country. '

Doesn't look like it at all. The scale of the demonstrations don't begin to compare both in number and violence with those that overthrew the Shah. The country is restive and a majority of people dislikes the mullahs, but they are not in armed rebellion.

'And they know we don't have to invade. Targeted strikes, from, I don't know, one of the neighboring countries where we have troops/assets, just enough to cripple the current regime's ability to respond, and the currrent structure would implode'

Not bloody likely. History tells us that a fast-losing popularity Khoemini regime received a huge boost from the Iraqi invasion. Patriotism brought IRanians together to fight fiercely, even against chem weapons. Any overt attack would likely unite the population against us.

Ebadi, the Iranian dissident, who got the Nobel Peace Prize last year, spokue out strongly against the Iraqi invasion. How strongly do you think that other dissidents and democrats in Iran are likely to resist an American invasion ?

Yes, but there are not any good bombing targets in Iran.

Jont - You mean the agreement to pay protection money to NoKo in return for an unverifiable promise that they would play nice and which they broke almost before the ink was dry? Is that the agreement you claim is being reworked?

Apparently, you only read talking points and have no clue about the tough stance the administration is taking in regard to NoKo. There is zero chance that any agreement bearing anything but utterly superficial similarity to the incompetent agreement the Clinton administration, with the help of our worst president ever Jimmah Cahtah, signed will ever be reproduced.

Serp Ent: "What must be why he said that he fully supported Bush's actions in Afhanistan. "

Gore says a lot of things when he's off his meds.

"What documents ? And how come given that we have every single IRaqi leader in jail, and have most IRaqi documents haven't we been abel to come up with any solid evidence ?"

Try here.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060746734/qid=1090296146/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/002-7370120-0725651?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Open your eyes.

Some newspaper in the Maldives misspelt Dubyas name....nuke them....they're Muslim and misspellers for fucks sake

'Apparently, you only read talking points and have no clue about the tough stance the administration is taking in regard to NoKo. '

Its the administration that has no clue. They have basically agreed to what is essentially the original Clinton deal with some minor changes. YOu can spin all you like, but thats the truth.

"http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060746734/qid=1090296146/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/002-7370120-0725651?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Open your eyes."

Aha. I see. An book by Stephen Hayes, who confuses names to draw links between Iran and Al Qaeda. Not particularly credible.

Again, I ask -- we have all of Saddam's inner ircle, we have most of his documents, we even have a lot of Al Qaeda. where are all the dramatic proofs of collaboration that we were waiting for ?

See "There was no way Bush could win." so why am I so worried.

"Many of these unused (but not unannounced) reasons have to do with the general reshaping of disfunctional Middle Eastern society..."

what a hilarious statement!

so let me get this straight ... there is genocide going in in darfur but the bush admin sits with hands folded debating the technical meaning of "genocide," however it was important to invade iraq because middle eastern society is disfunctional?

so the argument that saddam was a bad man and was killing his own people was floated so that us dopes would go along with the "nuanced" plans of the bush admin which are actually based on oil and disfunction.

great. i feel so much better now. thanks.

7503 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com

3222 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden?

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

4182 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com

3571 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com

4137 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com