pageok
pageok
pageok
George Bush, Mike Nifong, and Information Asymmetries:

I've been thinking a bit about information asymmetries. I opposed the Iraq war from the start -- it seemed to me that for the invasion to make sense, almost everything had to break our way, so the invasion was akin to making a bet with a 1:1 payoff that you would win only if you rolled snake eyes. The one thing that gave me pause was the confidence George Bush and his advisers had about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction. If Saddam had WMD, and there was an imminent danger of his using them, then it seemed to me that the cost/benefit ratio of the war was much closer. And Bush had access to information that I could not see. So a huge issue for me (and I'd bet for many others) was the magnitude and significance of the information asymmetry between me and Bush. I ended up concluding that the public case for Saddam's WMD seemed sufficiently spotty that the information asymmetry was not huge, but of course that was just an educated guess. Only in retrospect does it seem clear that Bush may have thought that he had much more information than the rest of us did, but that information turned out to be unreliable (note to future Presidents: be wary about relying on sources codenamed "Curveball").

When Mike Nifong stated that "there is no doubt a sexual assault took place" (and made more specific claims, like that the alleged victim "was struggling just to be able to breathe" during the alleged attack), again the information asymmetry loomed large. My assumption (like that of most people I know) was that he must have had mounds of evidence to support his confidence. Like Bush with WMD, Nifong had access to information that I could not see, and that access seemed important. It now seems that the only evidence he had for his statements was the alleged victim's multiple (and contradictory) statements, and Nifong's confidence (and the whole case) has become some combination of tragedy and farce.

The question that interests me is whether we can articulate any useful metrics for when we should defer to self-serving statements by those with access to more information, and when we should not. In the two instances above, the doubters were vindicated. There are other examples in this vein. LBJ had access to greater information about the Gulf of Tonkin incident than did the doubters, but the latter were right, as the Pentagon and LBJ misrepresented what happened. Indeed, the Pentagon Papers revealed repeated such instances in the Vietnam War. Meanwhile, General DeWitt emphasized his access to information as justifying the government's Japanese internment in World War II, but we now know that DeWitt simply fabricated and lied (see Eric Muller and Peter Irons on this).

But there are counter-examples. Many people believed that Julius Rosenberg was innocent, but it is now clear the government really did have the goods on him, and that he was guilty. Same for Alger Hiss. Indeed, the airstrikes that President Clinton ordered at the height of the Lewinsky imbroglio -- which were widely criticized as trumped up attempts at diverting attention, with little deference to the information asymmetry favoring the President -- look quite different after September 11, 2001.

So I return to my question: are there any useful guideposts for how much (if at all) we should defer to self-serving claims that rely on superior information? Or are we left to judge each instance on an ad hoc basis?

Ken Arromdee:
I think in the case of Iraq and WMD, we need to remember that just about everyone, whether on Bush's side or not, including Democratic politicians and foreign countries, believed Iraq had WMD. This doesn't seem to be a case where you believed someone because you falsely assumed their greater access to information gave them authority; anti-Bush people who did indeed have better access believed the same thing.
1.13.2007 1:17pm
Jonathanwallace.net (mail) (www):
I cannot think of any guidposts--however, the quote "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" seems fitting.
1.13.2007 1:21pm
John Burgess (mail) (www):
"Self-serving claims" is an odd way to put it. How was Bush personally served? Is it that he needed ego-gratification of some sort? Did he personally profit from a war?

I take exception, too, to your allegation that Curveball was the sole, primary, or even major source for claims of Iraqi WMD. I've seen no evidence that Curveball was the source of information used by British, French, or Italian intelligence services, all of whom were also strongly suspicious of WMD presence in Iraq. Are you suggesting this is merely circular reporting? It certainly might have been, but I've seen no evidence to support that outside the USG.

The question of 'information asymmetries' actually resolves to 'Who do you trust and when?" That is going to be answered by several factors including a) the bias you bring to the question; b) the trustworthiness of the source; c) prior experience in general. Thus, each situation has to be judged ad hoc. To do otherwise reduces everything to factor a).
1.13.2007 1:22pm
Michael Benson (mail) (www):
Your analysis of the situation right before the invasion was precisely the same as mine. I found it possible that Saddam had WMD's, but found the case as presented to me totally uncompelling. At the time it seemed that Bush might have some compelling evidence I was unaware of, and he indicated that he did. We now know--after the fact--that the additional information he held was faulty, and that it was possible to know it was faulty at the time.

But I added something you don't: ultimately I think the decision to go to war rests on the citizenry. Consequently, the idea that we would go to war entirely on the basis of informaiton the public does not have strikes me as wrong. I admit, the government needs to make some decisions daily the basis of which it can't disclose for security reasons. I say, however, that going to war isn't one of them. It's too important a decision to be made by our leaders without sharing their reasons with us.

That's the price we pay for democracy, but I'm comitted to it. I will never support a president going to war on the basis of information he or she refuses to share even if that information turns out to be credible.
1.13.2007 1:24pm
JimF:

Sometimes you just have to trust the judgement of the people in charge. That's why it's critically important to elect people who are honest and have good judgement.

(Please don't laugh...)
1.13.2007 1:44pm
Visitor Again:
are there any useful guideposts for how much (if at all) we should defer to self-serving claims that rely on superior information?

I take it this is a rather strained way of asking how can we tell if the President is lying and using his superior access to secret information as cover--if only you knew what we do but you don't and so you must trust us?

Well, the first guidepost I'd look at--because it's the best guidepost--is if the guy has already been caught lying to the public on a matter of public importance. If he has, then he's due no further deference. I wouldn't put lies about private life in this category--"I didn't inhale" or "I didn't have sex with that woman"--but lies about things like the Gulf of Tonkin affair and the Watergate break-in I would. I never believed Johnson again on Viet Nam after we found out about the Gulf of Tonkin although I voted for him in 1964.

Secrecy and assymetrical knowledge, as you call it, are antithetical to democracy. Democratic self-government--the consent of the governed--is dependent on the free flow of information and ideas to the people. There have to be some national security secrets, of course, but a government that continually relies on "trust us to do the right thing because only we know" is not a democratic government. And a government that has demonstrably lied on matters important to the public is no longer deserving of any trust.

No, I don't trust Bush. In fact, I tend to disbelieve him every time he opens his mouth.
1.13.2007 1:45pm
Byomtov (mail):
"Self-serving claims" is an odd way to put it. How was Bush personally served?

It seemed to me at the time that Bush very badly wanted to go war with Iraq. If that was true then it was self-serving in the sense that it supported what he already wanted to do.

I think that self-serving claims should be very heavily discounted, possibly ignored. Remember that totally predictable information is no information at all - it adds nothing to what we already know. If we ask Cheney whether he thinks the surge is a good idea he will say yes. That does not help one bit.

The problem is in determining the degree to which the claim is self-serving. If you thought Bush was very reluctant to go after Iraq then you would not consider the WMD claim self-serving, and would give it more credit.
1.13.2007 1:51pm
Daniel Chapman (mail):
Which, of course, just gets us back to personal bias. If we ask Kos whether Bush "wants to go to war for oil/daddy/haliburton/whatever" he will say yes. That does not help one bit.
1.13.2007 2:03pm
J. F. Thomas (mail):
I think in the case of Iraq and WMD, we need to remember that just about everyone, whether on Bush's side or not, including Democratic politicians and foreign countries, believed Iraq had WMD.

Ahh yes, continue with this lie and maybe someday everybody will believe it. That may have been the state of the conventional wisdom before the weapons inspectors went back into Iraq (although very few people actually believe he had reconstituted his nuclear program which Cheney was absolutely certain of). But as the inspectors as the started looking around they were finding nothing, even as Saddam was allowing them to conduct their tasks unmolested and we were telling them exactly where to look for stockpiles and facilities. Bush's claims were beginning to look ridiculous and it was becoming more and more evident that the claims that there was no ongoing production and that the stockpiles might have indeed been destroyed. Instead of letting the inspectors continue their work, the invasion went ahead.
1.13.2007 2:05pm
dearieme:
I'm prepared to believe that Bush allowed himself to be misled, but two public inquiries in Britain made it pretty clear that his principal ally had been told that British Intelligence wasn't at all persuaded that there were WMDs. If you wan't to read an enlightening story of misunderstanding leading to violence, but on a smaller scale, try
aggression
1.13.2007 2:06pm
American Psikhushka (mail) (www):
Regarding the invasion of Iraq, there were crucial pieces of available information that you weren't aware of or paying attention too - delivery capability. Even if Sadam did have WMDs, he lacked the hardware to deliver them effectively over long ranges. (Then there's the matter of him not having access to much of his own country due to the "no fly" zones.) Yes, someone could claim that they could be smuggled into the US, but if that was the big concern why weren't the borders sealed - then or now?
1.13.2007 2:12pm
American Psikhushka (mail) (www):
Michael Benson-

But I added something you don't: ultimately I think the decision to go to war rests on the citizenry.

Unfortunately this isn't the case - the government tail can manipulate and rig things to wag the citizenry's dog. One of the polls I heard stated the 70% of the public is now against the war - I don't see any troops coming home. The founding fathers knew this, that's why they put all kinds of transparency mechanisms in the Constitution, like a public trial and being able to face your accusers, for instance. It's also why the neocons have been busy dismantling all these controls.

And the Nifong situation parallels this - the DNA testing didn't support his case and in fact nearly destroys it. So what does he do, he basically hides the evidence. It's a good thing at least the scientist that runs the lab was somewhat honest, if Nifong had gotten him to destroy the held evidence the defendants would much more at risk than they are now. (Although they are still at risk now.)
1.13.2007 2:29pm
Cornellian (mail):
I don't know how you quantify factors like trust and self-interest. Some people you're more inclined to trust than others. Sometimes an elected official has an obvious interest in taking a particular position (like Nifong facing an imminent election, Romney going after the Republican nomination) that causes one to discount most of what he says.

Sometimes stuff is out there (e.g. pre-existing desire to invade Iraq for reasons unrelated to WMD) but lost in that gigantic ocean of information such that only some kind of Orwellian Total Information Awareness system could enable one to factor it in at the outset rather than just with hindsight.
1.13.2007 2:34pm
PersonFromPorlock:
The notion that WMD was ever more than a pretense is nonsensical; we invaded Iraq because the Moslem world needs an enema and Iraq, for various reasons, was the perfect place to put the hose.

After that promising start, though, we seem to have bollixed things up. Iraq may or may not ultimately be a success but it doesn't really matter since we've completely lost sight of the real objective -- reforming the Moslem world. Win or lose, when the troops come home, home is where they'll stay... until a new attack in the US starts things up again.
1.13.2007 2:35pm
Daniel Messing (mail):
The "big lie" is not about WMD. Rather, the big lie is that WMD was the prime reason for the invasion. Why not take a look at the speeches Bush gave before the invasion and find out what he said about Iraq? You'll find that WMD is one of the reasons, but not the only.
More important to me is that the US freed people from a horrific tyrant. Would that we could do the same with North Korea, would that we could take out Mugabe, would that we could have stopped the massacre in Rwanda, etc., etc. That is truly helping others. I find the right's insistence that such an action be in the immediate "best interest" of the country un-Christian. I find the left's insistence on the inviolability of sovereign governments a convenient change from the internationalism of the past.
I realize that we cannot cure all the world's ills. But to dither about whether Sudan would let a UN force to save the people of Darfur is pitiful.
What makes it worse is that in this extremely rich country we are so concerned about, in comparison, trivialities. "Should the morning-after pill be freely dispensed" is a nothing issue next to all those actions displaying the horrors of being a woman in a strict Moslem community (e.g., honor killings).
Perhaps we could do more without soldiers if we could speak with one voice that "suicide bombers" are simply evil, that cutting peoples' heads off because they are "enemies of Allah" is flat-out wrong.
We do not so speak because we have lost our knowledge of right and wrong. And while we pat ourselves on the back for our "nuanced" approaches to this and that, innocents around the world suffer and die.
If we have stopped the rape rooms, the gas attacks against "enemies of the state", the horror of a tyrant and his family who seemed to love inflicting pain, humiliation, and death, then I, for one, am grateful.
1.13.2007 2:38pm
Michael Benson (mail) (www):
American Psikhushka:

Unfortunately this isn't the case - the government tail can manipulate and rig things to wag the citizenry's dog. One of the polls I heard stated the 70% of the public is now against the war - I don't see any troops coming home. The founding fathers knew this, that's why they put all kinds of transparency mechanisms in the Constitution, like a public trial and being able to face your accusers, for instance. It's also why the neocons have been busy dismantling all these controls.

I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I meant on a theoretical level, the idea of just government inacted in America supposes that decisions like war are made by the nation as a whole. I didn't intend to make a factual claim about actual government practice in the 20th and 21st centuries.
1.13.2007 2:46pm
J. F. Thomas (mail):
I'm prepared to believe that Bush allowed himself to be misled

I might have believed that for a while. But for the last three years all that Bush has done is lie, lie, lie. He has changed facts to paint himself in the best light, ignored facts that he doesn't like, or just distorted facts to suit his own needs. He is either the stupidist man on the face of the earth or is deliberately lying. I will let you choose which you think is worse.

The "nobody anticipated the breach of the levees" statement is a case in point. Now this statement was completely untrue. Lots of people anticipated a breach of the levees, it had been talked about for years and had been warned about in the specific case of Katrina since Saturday morning (the storm hit Monday morning) when it became a Cat 5 and looked like it was going to hit New Orleans head on (I live in New Orleans, from the time I woke up on Saturday morning until the breach was confirmed it was all anyone was talking about). You may say "he didn't lie" because nobody he talked to anticipated the breach of the levees. But if that is true then that displays a stunning ignorance and lack of leadership that should disqualify him from being president. Otherwise, he was simply lying. Either way, the man can not be trusted.
1.13.2007 2:47pm
K Parker (mail):
Daniel Messing, thanks for saving me the effort of trying to write a reply here; yours is perfect.

And Perlock, though I certainly agree with the sentiments expressed in your first paragraph, never in a million years would I have come up with your phrasing! (Whether that's good or bad is in the eye of the beholder, for sure...)
1.13.2007 2:48pm
American Psikhushka (mail) (www):
we invaded Iraq because the Moslem world needs an enema and Iraq, for various reasons, was the perfect place to put the hose.

That's brilliant, invade Iraq because you think the muslims need to be beaten down some. That's great, what are you going to call it? KKK diplomacy? (obvious sarcasm)

After that promising start, though, we seem to have bollixed things up.

Oh, right. It wasn't because the theory behind it was completely ignorant, arrogant, naive, incompetent, lawless, and illegal or anything, it was because we messed up on the execution. To think that a population that primarily identifies by religion, sect, clan, and family would have immediately fallen in to western style democracy if we had only invaded them and destroyed their infrastructure the right way.

Iraq may or may not ultimately be a success but it doesn't really matter since we've completely lost sight of the real objective -- reforming the Moslem world.

Hmmm - I see. Billions of people need to be "reformed". It isn't that a tiny percentages of them have become terrorists and we need to work with the many moderates to bring them to justice or anything. We need to impose your opinions on them to "reform" them. Jeez, it makes so much sense when you put it that way.

Win or lose, when the troops come home, home is where they'll stay... until a new attack in the US starts things up again.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, we have a major presence all over the globe.
1.13.2007 2:53pm
J. F. Thomas (mail):
More important to me is that the US freed people from a horrific tyrant. Would that we could do the same with North Korea, would that we could take out Mugabe, would that we could have stopped the massacre in Rwanda, etc., etc. That is truly helping others.

So, in your world if we lie to get into a war and gin up reasons to enter it, its okay as long as the cause is noble. What if it backfires and more people end up dying as a result of the war than are saved by it (as is arguably the case in the Iraq war)? Does the cause then become unjust? When does it end? Are we always objectively right? Do we torture in the name of doing good (as the president is apparently willing to do his false claims notwithstanding)?
1.13.2007 2:54pm
RainerK:
To get back to the question posed: Can [we] articulate any useful metrics for when we should defer to self-serving statements by those with access to more information, and when we should not.

Well, DB, the best I can offer is to be guided by experience and intelligence. Or to paraphrase a great legal mind: I'll know a self-serving statement when I encounter one.
A healthy dosis of skepticism is also helpful as is a narrow assessment of the importance of the information. I.e. even if Saddam had had WMD, would that have constituted enough of a threat to warrant a war? At the time I had the impression that GWB acted like some cops do: Challenge their authority and they'll throw their power around.
1.13.2007 3:18pm
pmorem (mail):
The hatred for Bush is nauseating. Hate, hate, hate.

Now that I've gotten that out of my system.

One metric is:
Is it probable that the speaker believes the truth will come out in a timely manner, and on the same scale as the statements made?
1.13.2007 3:25pm
Hattio (mail):
I think the answer to the question is very simple, at least in theory. It becomes much harder in practice. First, if the person with the information makes it known, you evaluate the info and you're done (whehter you agree or not). If they don't make the info known, you have a right to be suspicious, but that may very well be justified. So you take other factors into consideration. Are there other motives (besides the one about which they can't release info). IOW, with Nifong you have the election, and with Bush you have his desire to go to war. Secondly, you look at the reasons they give for not parting with the information. In both Bush and Nifong's case, in my opinion, they had good reasons, national security and not talking about an ongoing case. But, you have to go on to step three, and examine whether they are truly being careful with all info in that category. And here, both Bush and Nifong clearly fail. Bush trumpeted every piece of information that would actually help push the US into war, while at the same time saying there was other secret info along those lines. Just didn't seem to add up. Same with Nifong. He claimed to know so much, until questions started being asked. Then he hadn't actually interviewed the victim etc. This gives a person every cause to be suspicious.
And I have to agree with the previous poster that going to war is just too important for a "Trust me I'm the President." And yes, I was also against Clinton sending troops to Bosnia and Kosovo. And no, I'm not against every war. We should be in Afghanistan in about double the numbers we are in Iraq, in my opinion.
1.13.2007 3:36pm
Hattio (mail):
RainerK,
You mean there are some cops who don't act that way???


Yes, that is sarcasm.
1.13.2007 3:38pm
KevinQ (mail) (www):
JimF said:
Sometimes you just have to trust the judgement of the people in charge.


That's fine for those who do trust the current leader, but I think it's incumbent upon those who are in opposition to the leader (or the one with the information) to speak louder, the more asymetrical the information distribution is.

The failure of the Democrats before the war was to not demand loudly enough to see the Bush's "secret" information. Those who make grand claims need grand evidence to support it, and "Because I said so" is never a valid reason. In such cases, it is the responsibility of doubters to demand access to information, and if the information is not forthcoming, to constantly remind the proponent's backers that their position is unsupported.

K
1.13.2007 4:03pm
Blar (mail) (www):
I think that one thing that you can do in these cases of information asymmetry is to demand as much information as can be safely disclosed, and to critically analyze the information and arguments that are publicized. Can you tell whether the people on the high side of the information asymmetry are taking a balanced view of the information that they have, and presenting what they can accurately and fairly? And does that information support the course of action that they're recommending? Daniel Davies drew on his MBA experience to write a nice piece on some more specific things to look for, and he reported some of the problems that he saw in the Bush administration's case for war in Iraq.

My view on Iraq, in late 2002, was that they probably had prohibited weapons, including chemical and biological weapons programs, but I was not convinced that they were capable of bringing about massive amounts of destruction, and I found it unlikely that they would engage in an unprovoked attack (which would have been suicidal for the regime). By March 2003, in the midst of weapons inspections and on the verge of war, I had more doubts about the extent of Iraq's military capabilities. I remember waiting for more definitive information on Iraq's weapons to emerge, and wondering what we should do once the inspectors uncovered serious prohibited weapons programs. When the weapons inspectors, presumably armed with all of the relevant information that the US government possessed, continued to come up empty-handed, that called into question the strength of the information that our government had. And it struck me as bizarre for the beginning of the war to interrupt the inspection process.
1.13.2007 4:20pm
Nitpicker:
If Saddam had WMD, and there was an imminent danger of his using them, then it seemed to me that the cost/benefit ratio of the war was much closer.

I suppose I should no longer be surprised that even lettered professors don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "imminent". Hint: it doesn't mean "likely".
1.13.2007 4:28pm
fishbane (mail):
I come closest to agreeing with Blar. The way to reduce assymetric information is to share information. When I buy a car, I shop around, read reports, etc. and favor those dealers who seem to me to be more forthcoming than those who are less.

If you want to sell me a war, "if you knew what I know" is at least huge red flag.

All I'd add to that is that reputation, while not a completely reliable indicator, is I can think of. Some people worry about having a good one, and act accordingly. Others don't, and instead attempt to manipulate perceptions. It is pretty easy to spot the second sort of person. That doesn't mean the first sort is "right" in a given situation, but it does help the sorting process.
1.13.2007 5:01pm
JunkYardLawDog (mail):
Nitpicker,

Just a pick. Bush NEVER said imminent. Not EVER.

Says the "Dog"
1.13.2007 5:16pm
Ragerz (mail):
To answer the question asked:

Maybe you can develop some rough metrics. But these should be thought of as heuristics rather than as consistently reliable rules. Ultimately, as with so much in life, you ultimately have to look at the specific case carefully. And the sad truth is that often you simply will not be able to overcome information assymetries to find out the truth.

In general, the fact that many things in life must be determined by looking at the specific case in question is actually more broadly applicable to philosophy. The reason that top-down ideologies (like libertarianism) end up being incredibly flawed is that it is impossible to correctly classify all phenomenon based on a few simply rules.

So, yes, you are dependent on ad hoc analysis to overcome information assymetries. And because ad hoc analysis is actually the best thing we have in many other situations, one should likewise reject libertarianism, marxism, and other top-down ideologies in favor of pragmatism.
1.13.2007 5:23pm
Elliot123 (mail):
I think the qustion is too skewed for an intelligent answer. If a claim is already judged to be self-serving, rather than servng a larger purpose, we can simply say it is not the proper role of government.

Since Bejnamin used the term twice, I presume it is basic to his quetsion. So the simple answer is never to undertake self-serving endeavors with government resources.

A far more interesting question is, "how much (if at all) we should defer to self-serving claims that rely on superior information?
1.13.2007 5:36pm
Guest lurker:
Has anyone seen this paper regarding Nifong?

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=949650
1.13.2007 5:51pm
Michael B (mail):
Tony Blair, 1/12/07, on Our Nation's Future - Defence, excerpt:

"Today, 5 years or more since September 11th, we can be clearer about the new situation we face, and clearer too about the choices for the future.

[...]

"What was unclear then but is very clear now is that what we were and are confronted with, is of a far more fundamental character than we supposed. September 11 wasn't the incredible action of an isolated group, a one-off strike masterminded by Osama Bin Laden. It was the product rather of a world-wide movement, with an ideology based on a misreading of Islam, whose roots were deep, which had been growing for years and with the ability to mount a radically different type of warfare requiring a radically different type of response. What we face is not a criminal conspiracy or even a fanatical but fringe terrorist organisation. We face something more akin to revolutionary Communism in its early and most militant phase. It is global. It has a narrative about the world and Islam's place within it that has a reach into most Muslim societies and countries. It adherents may be limited. Its sympathisers are not. It has states or at least parts of the governing apparatus of states that give it succour."

Too, from the NSC, a highly illuminating outline of the recently announced strategy changes vis-a-vis Iraq.

H/t commentor Rich at A/F
1.13.2007 5:56pm
Buckland (mail):
It seems to me that, in addition to things mentioned above in evaluating claims, the idea of the consequence of error comes in.

Rejecting the assertions that Saddam needed to be slapped where WMD's are in play seems more serious than slapping and finding an empty bag. A Type-I vs Type II error, as statisticians would say.
1.13.2007 6:09pm
Michael B (mail):
Re, South Vietnam and North Vietnam, including the Tonkin Gulf incidents, v. Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War, 1954-1965 for a broad range of historical correctives covering the decade long backdrop preceding the Tonkin Gulf incidents per se.

Fantasy is not history; even when that fantasy is endlessly looped and retold by the epigones and emulators of the Neil Sheehans and David Halberstams of the world, it's still not history.

For a broad ranging historical corrective covering the latter period, essentially the Creighton Abrams years from '68 and Tet and thereafter, A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in Vietnam.

For an online reveal of Sheehan's Bright Shining Lie and the general, ideological program Sheehan invests in, Peter Rollins (just under 10k words but highly revealing, both of Sheehan's program and the seminal influence of the small coterie of agenda driven reportage reflected in Sheehan, Halberstam, et al. at that germinal stage).
1.13.2007 6:43pm
Nitpicker:
Dog,

I didn't say Bush used the word. The post author used the word.
1.13.2007 6:54pm
Pyrrhus (mail) (www):
Very interesting post. However, I think the more interesting point is not, "how should we factor the likelihood of asymetry of information into our decisions," but "what do these examples tell us about claims of asymetry in the first place?"

Perhaps our conclusion ought to be that, in situations where the consequences of decisions are high, the cost of eliminating the assymetry (revealing sources) must be more closely compared to the cost of making the decision. When the costs are as high as they are in the Iraq war, the costs of revealing sources and techniques seems to pale in comparison. So perhaps asymetry simply should not have been tolerated.

Or perhaps asymetric material should be somehow quantified. If Bush divulges half of the evidence for war, then perhaps he ought to quantify it as such, and be held responsible if he is shown to quantifiably have exagerated the asymetry - thus imposing a cost on abusing asymetry. Very theoretical and perhaps unworkable, but just a thought.
1.13.2007 7:14pm
Anderson (mail) (www):
Trying very hard to avoid confronting the misinfo in this thread (the Dems believed there were WMD? could that be because THE WHITE HOUSE TOLD THEM SO? sheesh ...) ... the post's question is an interesting one.

I guess one way to answer the question is to base one's level of trust on the magnitude of the issue.

Preventive invasion of another country, one would think, would require a pretty high evidentiary threshold, and thus a corresponding unwillingness to base our support on mere trust.

Unfortunately, the 9/11 attacks would seem to have created so much fear and childishness in America, that we threw our skeptical streak out the window.

I'm very much afraid of what will happen to our collective brains if there's another such attack (or even greater one, like a nuke in a city). But the Iraq fiasco might be the experience we need to avoid that particular stupidity's repeating itself.

--Unless, of course, enough people continue to ignore the facts, and persuade themselves that the White House acted in good faith, or that the intel agencies really did their best, or (even) that the Iraq war has gone better than not.

That is why it's important to look back &not "let bygones be bygones."
1.13.2007 7:21pm
Duffy Pratt (mail):
It seems to me that what you call "information assymetries" are just nice words for fraud. How do you protect yourself against a would-be defrauder? The answer shouldn't be all that much different in the public sphere.
1.13.2007 7:51pm
Blar (mail) (www):
I have one thing to add to my previous post. That comment was about how you should try to avoid the dilemma of whether or not to trust people in power who have superior information by analyzing the information that you do have. There is another important way to avoid that dilemma, especially when relevant information can't be shared with the public. The information should at least be shared with institutions that can evaluate it according to publicly agreed on criteria, such as judges. You do not want to have to trust the judgment of a single individual or a narrow group of people.

This is one of the central problems that I have with the Bush administration. They have been trying to assert unchecked executive power over a range of important decisions that ought to be spread among the branches of our representative democracy. These include controversial policies, like the warrantless wiretapping program and the detentions and interrogations at Guantanamo and elsewhere, as well as (I would guess) other activities that we are not even aware of.

In the Duke case, there is a process in place so that we ultimately do not have to rely on our trust of Mike Nifong, and that is precisely how our system of government was designed to work.
1.13.2007 8:43pm
ed (mail) (www):
Hmmmm.

No offense but Bill Clinton repeatedly bombed the heck out of Iraq during his administration precisely on the issue of WMDs. Additionally nearly every single Democrat in both houses of Congress made on-the-record speeches about the connection between Saddam and WMDs.

So I frankly don't see a correlation between the two subjects.
1.13.2007 9:24pm
Stating the Obvious:
One metric is what the individual making the claim has to lose if he's wrong; another is whether he is paying the cost of being wrong himself, or is able to foist those costs onto others. The two initial examples involve politics. Politics is known as an area where costs are diffused and decision makers typically don't have to pay the costs of wrong decisions.

For example, despite being misled (or purposely misleading the American public) Bush was able to use concern of changing Presidents in the middle of a war the vast majority of Americans now see as wrong in order to be re-elected. His inability to protect the American public before 9/11 has led to him having much greater power after 9/11. Similarly, Mr. Nifong may have manipulated black voters into re-electing him. If he drops or loses the case now, he is still--short of disbarment--the DA until the next election, as Bush is still--short of impeachment--still President for 2 more years.

So, given these incentives, it makes little sense to trust information assymetries in such matters. To trust them is to assume that those who can strongly benefit themselves by lying will nonetheless not lie. If Bush or Nifong had to make a public case they were not lying (that is, if punishments like disbarment or impeachment were taken more seriously), there are ways for them to level the informational playing-field.

OTOH, if the informational assymetry occurs such that the person making the decision is fully going to pay the cost of the decision--say you watch a major stock investor buy or sell something that makes no sense to you--that informational assymetry is something to take seriously. Note that I'm not claiming such people never err and should be followed blindly, merely that the incentives are much better aligned to their decisions being correct.
1.13.2007 9:55pm
Stating the Obvious:
A response to Daniel Messing, who does not seem to be a student of history:

When Lord Grey, the Prime Minister, was moving toward a foreign war, Sydney Smith wrote the following letter to Lady Grey, in 1832: "For God's sake, do not drag me into another war! I am worn down, and worn out, with crusading and defending Europe, and protecting mankind; I must think a little of myself. I am sorry for the Spaniards - I am sorry for the Greeks - I deplore the fate of the Jews; the people of the Sandwich Islands are groaning under the most detestable tyranny; Baghdad is oppressed, I do not like the present state of the Delta; Tibet is not comfortable. Am I to fight for all these people? The world is bursting with sin and sorrow. Am I to be champion of the Decalogue, and to be eternally raising fleets and armies to make all men good and happy? We have just done saving Europe, and I am afraid the consequence will be, that we shall cut each other's throats. No war, dear Lady Grey! - No eloquence; but apathy, selfishness, common sense, arithmetic! I beseech you, secure Lord Grey's swords and pistols, as the housekeeper did Don Quixote's armour. If there is another war, life will not be worth having.
1.13.2007 10:00pm
Roy Haddad (mail):
Think about it this way. Say you meet someone who wants to sell you some stock, and you know much less about that stock than he does. He promises it's a good deal and he just needs to liquidize some assets. Do you trust him?

The only basis for trust is evidence of previous honorable dealings - this requires that the agent act in a way which was clearly not in its own self-interest, but acted instead to maintain a principle. There are precious few politicians that I would even consider trusting on that basis.

> Sometimes you just have to trust the judgement of the people in charge.

And much, MUCH more often, you just have to distrust them.
1.14.2007 12:02am
David W. Hess (mail):
I thought much the same thing in the days leading up to the war: Either President Bush has information he can not reveal which makes it imperative that we invade Iraq and replace its government or President Bush is incompetent to make this determination and execute the invasion plus reconstruction of Iraq. Given my total lack of trust in him and the Republican party do to their history and nature, I held the second view. Note that I do not believe Al Gore and the Democrats would have done any better. They for the most part supported the war as well. There was always the possibility that the reconstruction of Iraq would be handled in such a way as to be successful despite the initial error in invading but I saw it as a failure even before the Iraqi elections. I probably would have supported a war despite an asymmetry in information making it look like a poor decision if I believed order could have been enforced in Iraq.

The whole situation reminds me of a game of Diplomacy: There were certain specific requirements for success some of which we lacked. After the beginning of the invasion, there was a different set of specific requirements for success some of which we also lacked. The most damaging of those in common between the two sets was our lack of ability to formulate and execute a plan that would actually work despite unknown opposition and poor intelligence. I never believed that President Bush could himself or through others form and execute a plan that did not require the cooperation of our enemies.

To summarize, I believe the asymmetry in knowledge about the situation was irrelevant because President Bush was not capable of formulating and executing a successful invasion and reconstruction. If our objective was actually to plunge the region into chaos then President Bush may have my apology although I wish we could have done so at lower cost.

None of this is to single out President Bush for criticism. I believe he was just the wrong person for this situation and the fact that has not succeeded in this endeavor does not mean he has not done an outstanding job in other ways.
1.14.2007 12:07am
American Psikhushka (mail) (www):
Ragerz-

And the sad truth is that often you simply will not be able to overcome information assymetries to find out the truth.

Not exactly. More often than not if you do the necessary legwork you can overcome a lot. I mean attorneys don't interview one party to a dispute and then go "oh, well I guess they're right" without interviewing the other party. Unless they have an agenda.

The reason that top-down ideologies (like libertarianism) end up being incredibly flawed is that it is impossible to correctly classify all phenomenon based on a few simply rules.

So, yes, you are dependent on ad hoc analysis to overcome information assymetries. And because ad hoc analysis is actually the best thing we have in many other situations, one should likewise reject libertarianism, marxism, and other top-down ideologies in favor of pragmatism.


How are you saying that libertarianism is top down? It begins with a commitment to protecting, maintaining, and preserving the rights of the individual. Calling communism, socialism, collectivism, etc. top down may be accurate - they revolve around centralized planning and the weakening of the rights of the individual to one extent or another. But libertarianism would seem to be the antithesis of "top down" in this context.

And what do you mean by pragmatism? Libertarianism would seem to be quite pragmatic.
1.14.2007 12:51am
A psychiatrist who learned from veterans (mail) (www):
I apppreciate your criticising Mr. Bush without vitriol. You know there were arguments in the months prior to our going to the UN when it was clear that Mr. Bush wanted to invade Iraq. Sadaam had a clear history of murdering innocent and mere opponents, in a sense was like the man eating tiger who had to be considered dangerous for living in that unnatural manner. If Sadaam didn't have dangerous WMD, he had them on his Muslim holiday list along with suicide bombers of Isreali children; and the sanctions were tenuous. The Democrats and media, representing you presumably, said we had to get the acquiescence of the world community. Was he going to say that 'after 9/11 (and implications noted by Tony Blair above) I don't think I can do my duty as first soldier and guardian of the country with Saddam Hussein in office?' No, he had to make a case on UN precedents and Saddam's failure to comply. Like the prosecutors we have been lambasting in recent blog posts, he, for you, put on the case with the evidence he had. The case came down not to a conviction or acquittal of Saddam, because there really wasn't sufficient evidence, in part because there was 'obstruction of justice (or investigation).' This then lacked a definitive finding from the UN, and Saddam appeared not to cooperate believing his French and Russian allies would necesitate an affirmative finding on the first charge; but Bush was never compelled by their finding to begin with, only ours of making an honorable international trial, and proceeded then with the public impression of Saddam's obstruction of justice to war.
1.14.2007 1:16am
K Parker (mail):
StatingAsserting the ObviousQuestionable:

So I take it Sydney Smith committed suicide, then?
1.14.2007 2:59am
Pantapon Rose (mail):
I guess the idea that we went to war with Iraq because of WMDs proves the line that if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth. But anyone who reads Bush's speeches leading up to the war will realize WMD was one of several reasons he argued for war.
1.14.2007 4:10am
Martin Bento (mail) (www):
First of all, I would separate cases of political significance from common crime, because the stakes and implications are generally much higher and this distorts the usual biases. I don't know much about the Nifong situation anyway.

I also don't see hard and fast rules, but the road to improvement lies in seeing where you and the population generally have tended to be wrong, and correcting for these biases, perhaps by deliberately entertaining hypotheses you previously would have rejected out of hand.

In the political cases the poster mentioned, I'd point out that in all cases, for good or ill, the believers prevailed at the time over the doubters - in public opinion (again, at the time), in "respectable" opinion, and in influencing what actually happened. The Rosenbergs were executed; we did go to war with North Vietnam; we invaded Iraq. So the prevailing prejudice, both popular and elite, is towards belief in potentially self-interested figures of political authority, at least in one's own society. The first rule of thumb, then, is to recognize that the general bias is to insufficient mistrust and to be willing to compensate for that. For people who found themselves accepting Bush's WMD claims or his father's incubator tales, this should be accompanied by a realization that you also probably have a personal prejudice towards excessive faith in established authority, at least in cases of that nature.

Another possibility is partisan prejudice, of course. If you bought the incubator legend and all the WMD claims, but thought Clinton was just attacking Osama to wag the dog, your bias is probably partisan. OTOH, if you believe that both Kosovo and Iraq II were honestly advocated, then you probably don't have a partisan prejudice, just a bias towards believing what you're told, perhaps a "patriotic" bias.
1.14.2007 5:40am
Gritsforbreakfast (mail) (www):
Reagan said "Trust, but verify," and that's the closest I think you can come to a rule of thumb when there is information assymetry. There is no metric, per se, because you're measuring an unknown.

I also think that often, in politics, at least, it's possible to come up with a range of what are the reasonable or likely alternative motives that could be in play for the assymetrical possessor of information based on their interests, ideology, etc., and if one of those alternative explanations fits the facts better than the articulated one, I tend not to believe the non-disclosing party unless more (convincing) information is revealed.
1.14.2007 8:03am
Taeyoung (mail):
If Saddam had WMD, and there was an imminent danger of his using them, then it seemed to me that the cost/benefit ratio of the war was much closer.
I'm sure someone else has pointed this out already (too lazy to read) but if this was the cost benefit ratio you evaluated under, you used the wrong one. Bush stated plain and clear that he wasn't waiting until the threat was imminent:
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.
People have offered all kinds of sophistic explanations of why what Bush actually said doesn't count, but I don't find them particularly persuasive -- they all add up to a kind of information asymmetry themselves: the asymmetry of failing to pay attention to what Bush was saying, and then trying to blame other people (i.e. Bush) for it. But it's silly for them to blame him for their own wilful ignorance.
1.14.2007 9:50am
mickslam (mail):
One thing that is not part of this discussion is the matter of consequences of being wrong about the matter at hand.

If we simply look at the 4 cases mentioned, it becomes rapidly clear that this must be a factor in any decision. The 2 cases about the spies, there were really no consequences from being wrong. Of course, there are spies, and these people may have been spies. What are the consequences in these cases? Essentially nothing. The drawings provided by the Rs were of napkin quality. Before the treason of Hiss was known, the malta agreements were widely lauded as very good for the US. However, even worst case scenarios of these are simply not that bad.

However, in the case of war, we have discovered that the consequences are horrible, both in the loss of lives, and US reputation. We should demand almost full disclosure in these cases. We essentially protected the identity and reputation of a few people so we could kill thousands and place the reputation of the US on the line. This is stupid.

For WWII, we had indisputable proof that we we must take action. For Iraq, we didn't. Take any, take all of the reasons given, take any combination, and they simply do not add up to a sufficient reason to go to war.

We had more backing after 9/11 than we remember. And we've spent it all and more on a stupid war that we lost.
1.14.2007 10:00am
Public_Defender (mail):
With my fellow lawyers, I give them the benefit of the doubt, until they have proven that they don't deserve it.
1.14.2007 11:25am
Stating the Obvious:
K Parker, it seems, joins Mr. Messing in not being a student of history. To such people, everything is new. Current situations never have historical precedent. We always now face "a unique danger" that requires we renounce principles in view of "a new Hitler" or "an unparalleled menace to world peace".

To people other than Parker and Messing (that is, to people with some sense of historical understanding) the Smith quote tells us several things: almost 200 years ago, Baghdad was oppressed, and the "state of the Jews" was not sterling. There are always problems in the world that power-hungry politicans can use to whip up ignorant crowds (pay attention KP) into giving up civil liberties and federal surpluses in order to gain an illusory safety, for the moment.

There are now cries for a renewed draft and the Middle East hates this country far more than it did on September 10, 2001. It would not be unreasonable to refer to such a state of affairs as having made life less worth living. But because almost 200 years ago a similar comment made by Smith, one of the best rhetoricians of his age (no, of course Parker doesn't know that) had a tad of hyperboly in it, KP thinks he's made some rather clever retort. Very sad.
1.14.2007 1:08pm
Taeyoung (mail):
So I return to my question: are there any useful guideposts for how much (if at all) we should defer to self-serving claims that rely on superior information? Or are we left to judge each instance on an ad hoc basis?
Thinking about this a little more, I think the answer is that there aren't really. Just from my nitpick above, I think one thing we can do, that isn't really in the nature of a guidepost, but just good practice, is pay attention to what the people with superior information are saying. If they know A and conclude B, then even if other people (even their allies) and saying not B but C, we should be careful to restrict ourselves to what we know from B, when evaluating costs and benefits. I.e. don't rely on the press, with its limited reading comprehension skills -- go to the best vetted sources (e.g. the SOTU, or formal policy statements) instead, to the extent they are available. At least in the case of war, which is messy and involves killing people.

In the Duke case, on the other hand, there were problems, of course, but I think that for the general public, we should still defer to the conclusions reached by those with superior knowledge. They may be corrupt, as they seem to have been in this instance, but they have the knowledge, and we don't. And there was only limited reason, a priori, to distrust Nifong (although reasons emerged soon enough). The exception here, I think, would be the faculty at Duke, who disgraced themselves by betraying their students in the press, in that letter they signed in their capacity as faculty members. I think a corporation ought to be biased in favour of the innocence of its own employees, a man in favour of his neighbours, a parent in favour of his child, and a member of an academic institution in favour of his students. At least when he himself is in possession of no evidence whatsoever indicating guilt.
1.14.2007 1:21pm
Taeyoung (mail):
Current situations never have historical precedent. We always now face "a unique danger" that requires we renounce principles in view of "a new Hitler"
Ah, the irony . . . haha.
1.14.2007 1:23pm
Evelyn Blaine (mail):
Information asymmetries in political decision-making are terribly interesting, and I have time only to offer a few rough thoughts, so consider this a draft of an argument for a position that many might object to: given certain background assumptions, political and ideological affinities should play a major role in determining how much one trusts a government actor's decisions based on unavailable information. We're considering a situation in which I believe, on the basis of evidence E, that X is an appropriate action, and the official believes on the basis of some evidence E* > E, that X is not an appropriate action. To what degree should one defer to this judgment?

I think that, assuming that one has reached one's political beliefs after mature reflection and holds them with real conviction, the question one should ask oneself is the following: counterfactually, if I had evidence E*, would I believe that X is not an appropriate action? In evaluating this, one should look at two things: 1) to what degree can I expect my beliefs in E to track my beliefs in E* and 2) to what degree can I expect the official's beliefs in E* evidential situation to track my beliefs in E*.

The first is answered by looking at relevantly similar cases of information asymmetry in the past and doing the counterfactuals -- i.e., asking oneself, "Would what I would have believed on the basis of public plus secret evidence be the same as what I would have believed on the basis of public evidence alone?" So, if one knows a fair amount of history and has come to the conclusion that, in general, the addition of subsequently revealed secret evidence doesn't change the way one would have viewed certain government actions relative to the decisions one would have made only on the basis of information publicly available at the time, this is good inductive support for a non-deference in the present case.

The second question should be investigated by looking at cases in the past where the public official in question shares one's evidence and seeing whether the official's beliefs track one's own beliefs -- but, in large part, this will just be a measure of political and ideological affinity. It might be *restricted* political and ideological affinity -- you might think that belief-matching vis-a-vis abortion isn't a terribly good predictor of belief-matching vis-a-vis foreign policy. But it's still some kind of political viewpoint-based affinity, which is entirely unsurprising since the beliefs in question are not merely beliefs about what follows from what logically, but beliefs about what the appropriate *actions* are. If someone shares my political ideology, this will mean that in most cases we make the same judgments about political matters on the same evidence; this gives me grounds to believe that, in cases where we don't share the same evidence, his beliefs and judgments track the ones I would have had (counterfactually) given his evidence. So, if one shares a political ideology with the official, then one has reasons for deference which one does not have when the official differs on political views.

Upshot: in general, Democrats may have better reasons to defer to Democratic leaders in cases of information asymmetry than to Republicans, and Republicans may have better reasons to defer to Republicans than to Democrats. This isn't "partisanship" in the sense of putting party loyalty above one's considered views of the best course of action, but rather a perfectly reasonable response to information asymmetries involved in evaluating what the best course of action is.
1.14.2007 1:46pm
Duncan Frissell (mail):
Half of the Iraq War Resolution state non-WMD reasons. The first foreign nation the US invaded after the Pearl Harbor Attack was French Morocco.

Is it possible that GWB had strategic and tactical reasons for resuming the war with IRAQ (look at map) that he didn't want to mention?

Not all war justifications are expicitly stated (see Vietnam) but they can usually be figured out by the literate (see Vietnam). The illiterate have problems in any case.
1.14.2007 2:43pm
Nick P.:
Is it possible that GWB had strategic and tactical reasons for resuming the war with IRAQ (look at map) that he didn't want to mention?

Looking at a map makes it even more baffling. The U.S. was in the process of removing the Taliban, a Sunni thorn in Iran's eastern side. We then invaded Iran's Sunni enemy on the western border. Looking at a map, one might reasonably conclude that our goal was to strengthen and stabilize the government of Iran. Certainly, the Iraq war served their interests more than ours.

If that was Bush's strategic and tactical reasons, then yes, you may be right that he didn't want to mention them.
1.14.2007 3:03pm
American Psikhushka (mail) (www):
a psychiatrist...-

Like the prosecutors we have been lambasting in recent blog posts, he, for you, put on the case with the evidence he had.

That's the thing - Nifong didn't have any good evidence. What he had was all either contradictory or exculpatory. Then when more damaging exculpatory evidence came in - the DNA - he went about conspiring with the head of the laboratory to hide it. (As an aside - I wonder whether that constitutes evidence tampering?) So as far as putting on the case "for us" I don't think that was the case, since most people don't believe in wasting the taxpayers' money to dishonestly and needlessly ruin the lives of innocent people.

Why did Nifong do it? There are a number of possible motivations: Winning votes by claiming that he's "making the community safer"; Maybe he's a liberal that wanted the stereotypical accusations to be true, even if they weren't, like many of the academics and activists involved; He certainly seemed to stage a lot of theatrics for the media, apparently the attention was at least a partial motivator. But in any none of this was justification for ruining the lives of innocent people, and it certainly wasn't "for us".
1.14.2007 4:29pm
American Psikhushka (mail) (www):
Typo just above. Last sentence should read: "But in any case..."
1.14.2007 4:31pm
American Psikhushka (mail) (www):
Concerning what should be done about "information asymmetries", I think the name of the game should be questioning everything with a healthy amount of skepticism: Question the information. Question the sources. Question the proponents. Question the assumptions. Question everything.

As a lot of points in this thread has shown, nearly all the information that would have indicated Iraq was a bad idea was out there for the gathering.

And another aspect of this issue is transparency. The founding fathers were very concerned with this, which is why they made public trials and things like habeas corpus part of the Constitution. Yes, sometimes government secrecy is necessary. But that's not the case in a large amount of the situations in which it is being used today. Government secrecy has come to be used as a tactic to conceal all kinds of government misconduct and criminality.
1.14.2007 4:42pm
K Parker (mail):
Uhh, Obvious:
There are now cries for a renewed draft
Nice bit of intellectual dishonesty there! The only cries for the draft are coming from those who oppose the campaign in Iraq and wish we had a draft because they think it would make the pro-GWOT position worse, domestically. Nobody in the military wants a draft; or at least nobody who does has said a single word in public about it.

And no, I wasn't unaware that Sydney Smith was using hyperbole--but it didn't get him his World Peace™, either, did it? Which was my point...

Taeyoung, nice catch! It is kind of self-refuting, isn't it?
1.14.2007 6:34pm
RainerK:
"As a lot of points in this thread has shown, nearly all the information that would have indicated Iraq was a bad idea was out there for the gathering."

Sure, and a lot of people were publicly and loudly pointing it out.
But what do you do when the actors on the stage simply and adamantly refuse to listen, turn and twist, withold and disseminate the information as suits their purpose? If that doesn't do it, then those who don't agree are labeled "unpatriotic" or "aiding and abetting the enemy". Isn't that exactly the way it was?
1.14.2007 6:49pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
The information showing the invasion of Iraq was a bad was based on information which was automatically not "assymetric"?
If I'm told Saddaam would never work with a theocrat, what arcane knowledge am I required to believe without any evidence?
If I'm told Saddaam doesn't want any [more] foreign wars and is no threat, why am I to believe the speaker knows Saddaam's mind?
If I am told Saddaam has no WMD, how do I know it isn't merely a matter of clever hiding?
If I am told Saddaam won't start the WMD program after the sanctions (eeeevillll sanctions) are lifted and the inspectors gone, what secret information whose source cannot be revealed am I to trust?
There's a planted axiom here, at least once we got going on Iraq, that there is only one assymetry.
Anybody can be bullshitting and claiming special knowledge. Even those suffering from BDS.
1.14.2007 7:45pm
DRB (mail):
...the Middle East hates this country far more than it did on September 10, 2001.

Well, seems to me "the Middle East" (whoever that is) hated this country just fine on September 11, 2001.

Oddly, despite their now vastly increased hate, "the Middle East" hasn't had a lot of luck taking out any more buildings or citizens on American soil. In fact, in the last 6.5 years, the United States has had immense success keeping Muslim terrorists from striking the mainland US while killing them in the thousands on their home turf. This suggests to me that yes, maybe Bush does have access to information that people posting comments on the internet do not.
1.14.2007 10:42pm
Ryan Waxx (mail):

As a lot of points in this thread has shown, nearly all the information that would have indicated Iraq was a bad idea was out there for the gathering.


As was a lot of information that indicated the opposite. Forget to mention that, did we?


Sure, and a lot of people were publicly and loudly pointing it out.


Ah, so we are supposed to ignore Bush's so-called "self-serving" claims and instead listen to the self-serving claims of the democrats. Gee, what an intellectual basis you have there, buddy!


There's a planted axiom here, at least once we got going on Iraq, that there is only one assymetry.


Exactly.
1.15.2007 3:46am
Ryan Waxx (mail):

Looking at a map makes (invading Iraq) even more baffling.


Well, perhaps looking at a map while assuming that Bush is incompetant/evil/Hitler may cause confusion... although I'd think that getting out of bed without strangling oneself in the bedsheets might be a more complex task.

But looking at the map with an open mind reveals more. Notice that three extremist-fanancing states (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria) not only can be entered from Iraq, but also have the easiest land route to coordinate with each other taken away from them.

Its pretty clear that geographically it reinforces the same implicit threat that the Iraq invasion did: Get too far out of line, and nasty things can happen. And although it means that those three countries can do their best to influence Iraq, it also means that Iraq can influence them, if it succeeds.

A success that democrats seek to stop just as surely as they've made a mockery of the aforementioned threat.
1.15.2007 4:02am
American Psikhushka (mail) (www):
As was a lot of information that indicated the opposite. Forget to mention that, did we?

No, that's fairly obvious. But if you had the right information it didn't take much to point out the flaws in the justification for invading Iraq.

But looking at the map with an open mind reveals more. Notice that three extremist-fanancing states (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria) not only can be entered from Iraq, but also have the easiest land route to coordinate with each other taken away from them.

Oh right, it's not like we're broke and beleaguered or anything. Sure - start up another front. And why don't we touch off that powderkeg in North Korea while we're at it. Come to think of it, it's winter. Why don't we invade Russia and take on the Russian winter - then we'll have officially made every blunder in the book.
1.15.2007 8:11am
RainerK:
Ryan Waxx:

To follow your simplistic analysis, as if individual position was neatly divided by partisan affiliation.

How about doing the intellectual exercise and think a small step further:

Believing Bush's self-serving claims: - going to war.
Believing the Democrats' self-serving claims - not going to war

War or no war, quite an even choice to you?
What the hell, just a little war, far, far away, where it won't impact your little world, right?
1.15.2007 8:34am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Rainer. You're presuming the dems were against the war because they don't like war, didn't think this was the right war, all the right reasons.
Problem is, they were for it--Clinton and the dems made regime change in Iraq official US policy--before they were against it. They were against the war for partisan political reasons, not a good idea.
And they will have to pay the price--along with the rest of us--if they manage to sabotage the effort.
So it's not like one side wanted to do bad and the other side wanted to do good.
Both choices have a price and the war side figured the price for war there and now was lower than waiting.
Of course, once the price for no war has been foreclosed, it's easy to say it wouldn't have happened. But those who say that will know they're lying, as will everybody else.
1.15.2007 9:37am
David W Drake (mail):
Following up on Mr. Aubrey's comment, please see the
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. You can find it on her Senate website.

I cannot believe that Sen. Clinton, who, it seems to me, had pretty good access to information during the Clinton Presidency, somehow permitted George W. Bush to dupe her into making the statements in that speech or voting as she did.

Also, if you read the reports of Hans Blix as delivered to the U.N., it is fairly clear that SOMETHING was going on in Iraq in 2003 that had to do with WMD.
1.15.2007 11:37am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Ref Drake. Also see various speeches in 1998, which was, for us folks who like to look back, a very good year in some respects.

Are you, Mr. Drake, the redliner Drake?
1.15.2007 11:47am
David W Drake (mail):
Mr. Aubrey--I don't think so, as I don't know who the redliner Drake is.
1.15.2007 1:07pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Well, as to the redliner:
Satchmo Armstrong was asked to define jazz.
His response was, "Cat gotta ask ain't never gonna know."
So runs the story, anyway.
1.15.2007 1:20pm
JSinAZ:
I beleive American Psikhushka and other commeters have conflated two different things - justification for entry into Iraq, and the strategic value of the various possible results of the conflict.

Personally, I have always felt the proffered justification for entry was slim - but my elected representatives of all stripes to a wide margin felt otherwise, and authorized action on the part of the Executive.

I also beleive that the current terrible situation regarding sectarian conflict in Iraq was so easily anticipated that it is quite possible that this was calculated into the risk / reward assesment of the operation - and it was considered an "upside".

From a cynical perspective, it makes sense to consider the active fighting between the two extremes of the Islamist movement something other than defeat for the side of the west in the war on terrorism. Even if a stable Iraq is not left behind, the situation has been forced. The reality is that the Sunni Saudi axis must now face an fundamentalist Shia Iran plus proxies, directly. Given past examples, enormously costly infighting should result.

It's hard not to feel awful for the civilians whose deaths are the cost of the expected sectarian war, however.
1.15.2007 1:53pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
JSinAZ.

Would you like to have gone public with the "anticipation" that the good citizens of Iraq were likely to slaughter each other wholesale just because that's the kind of people they are?
You'd have been hounded as a racist.
Our society generates a Tim McVeigh and an Eric Rudolph about every five or ten years. Iraq generates ten times that every week.
Who'd want to say they're an effed up society which needs a strong hand like Saddaam to keep the animals in their cages?
In fact, you can't even say that when it's happening. Saying it months or years in advance would surely have been impossible.
1.15.2007 2:01pm
JSinAZ:
Naturally, there is no defense against a charge of racism - and even attempting to mount one is indicative of guilt [/sarcasm]

As to historical examples of sectarian wolves being barely held at bay by a the strong dictator of a centralized state, well I have a globe sitting next to me that shows a country called "Yugoslavia" that used to stretch from Italy to Greece. In the process of contracting its' borders, there were a few unplesant incidents if I recall correctly.

That example is so clear, and the analogies between those parts of the world seem so evident (to a lay person such as myself), that the actual result we are seeing seems like it should have been the expected one. Any other result was was somewhere between best-case (a functioning central government) and wishful thinking (a burgeoning pluralistic liberal democracy devoid of slavish obediance to islamic ideals).
1.15.2007 2:14pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
JSinAZ.

I grew up with a couple of kids whose parents had come from Yugoslavia. For one kid, it was grandparents. Her mother came from the Croatian community in Detroit and her father from the Serbian community. Nobody thought it would work out. There weren't many at the wedding, which is probably why nobody got killed.
When her father was captured in the Bulge, he mother's side thought it was just dandy.
Decades ago, Analog Sci Fi mag had a serial about a trained assassin from a Balkan clan going out among the stars to complete a blood feud. It was supposed to take place a thousandn years from now. All kinds of adventures. The thing is, the editor thought the premise of Balkan feuds still going on after a thousand MORE years of progress was legitimate.

You're probably right, but who'd have wanted to say so, publicly.

Interesting article in the Feb 2000 Car &Driver about driving the uparmored Humvee in Bosnia. It's not all that much about the vehicle. It's about the people and you have to wonder.

Still, the Kuwait example, as P. J. O'Rourke said, may have misled us.
1.15.2007 3:03pm
American Psikhushka (mail) (www):
Richard Aubrey-

Both choices have a price and the war side figured the price for war there and now was lower than waiting.
Of course, once the price for no war has been foreclosed, it's easy to say it wouldn't have happened. But those who say that will know they're lying, as will everybody else.


No, you don't have to lie to say that you were fairly certain beforehand that the war was going to be a horrible mistake. Or that Sadam, after years of crippling sanctions, without access to much of his own country due to the no-fly zones, sleeping in a different location every night for fear of assassination, without the means to deliver WMDs effectively even if he had them, etc... - wasn't much of a credible threat to the US.
1.15.2007 4:29pm
American Psikhushka (mail) (www):
JSinAZ-

I suppose it could be a fairly clever scheme cooked up by the Neocons to pit the Sunnis versus the Shia, but there's a lot of contrary evidence.

- All the PNAC crap theorized that they were going to start a democratic "domino effect" in the Middle East by turning Iraq into a democracy overnight.

- Why are we still there? Once the heavy sectarian violence picked up you'd expect them to leave. I guess you could suggest that they were sociopaths that didn't give a crap about soldiers' lives, and I guess you could be right.

- Regardless of whether it achieves the desired goal of sectarian strife, its still a horrendous negative for the country. We've created many more enemies of all sects and political philosophies. We've wasted lives and countless amounts of money. (Though much of it was poured into the pockets of crony defense contractors.) So even if it was Machiavellian manuevering, it was still a horrible failure for the country as a whole. (Although certain citizens benefitted immensely.)
1.15.2007 4:43pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
American P.

What would Saddaam have done if left alone with no sanctions, no inspectors, and boatloads of oil money? Remember, the first two were due to end and the third was due to start.
1.15.2007 4:50pm
American Psikhushka (mail) (www):
Richard Aubrey-

Would you like to have gone public with the "anticipation" that the good citizens of Iraq were likely to slaughter each other wholesale just because that's the kind of people they are?

You could have predicted that from a perspective other than a racist one. (Although certain hysterical PC types cannot or refuse to be convinced of this.) The people there identify by religion, sect, tribe, and clan - you don't have to be racist to know there was going to be trouble. To a large extent this is the colonial powers' fault anyway. When they imposed this country on the area they lumped people that had little in common with each other together willy-nilly.
1.15.2007 4:53pm
American Psikhushka (mail) (www):
Richard Aubrey-

What would Saddaam have done if left alone with no sanctions, no inspectors, and boatloads of oil money? Remember, the first two were due to end and the third was due to start.

Basically, he would have acted like the other knucklehead dictators out there. And wasn't he writing some bad fiction as well? Maybe he would have written the Great Iraqi novel. But in any case I don't think he would have done much - he may have started up with the Kurds again because I believe they became somewhat autonomous during the sanctions and no-fly zones.

I don't think he would have been stupid enough to become directly involved in terrorist operations against the US, in that case if it was proven retaliatory action against the regime might be justified. (Lasting about a month - go in, depose, leave.) In any case it wasn't anything that more blather and hamstringing by the UN couldn't pretty much put a lid on. So no, in my opinion Sadam was no more a priority than the two dozen plus other dictators out there.
1.15.2007 5:06pm
Mr.X (mail):
American Psikhushka, the sanctions which restrained Iraq would not have lasted much longer, with Russia, France, and China working very hard to end them.

It is interesting that if Iraq had the extensive WMD program that Libya did (and which was ended solely by Libya fearing that the US would do to them what was done to Iraq), we would not be having this discussion.
1.15.2007 5:23pm
JSinAZ:
American Psikhushka, I would urge you to consider more than a single dimension when evaluating any aspect of the situation in Iraq - whether the ostensible rationales that led us there or the metrics used to declare victory, defeat (or even to measure if the battle is over).

In response to your points:

- All the PNAC crap theorized that they were going to start a democratic "domino effect" in the Middle East by turning Iraq into a democracy overnight.

Unfortunately, I would place this in the "best case", relitively unlikely, class of possible outcomes. The Iraq situation has always seemed to me like a lanced carbuncle for which we did not adequately select an antibiotic before letting the nasty out.

- Why are we still there? Once the heavy sectarian violence picked up you'd expect them to leave. I guess you could suggest that they were sociopaths that didn't give a crap about soldiers' lives, and I guess you could be right.

I understand the anger, but I believe that this comment betrays a lack of appreciation of the gravity of starting a war - once in, it is always much harder to decide to get out. In general, this is for a good reason.

- Regardless of whether it achieves the desired goal of sectarian strife, its still a horrendous negative for the country.

I would not have said "desired" as you did, just as I would not have said of the administration that "they were sociopaths". There is a terrible calculus to waging war, and very few of us in private life think in those terms.

I would ask you: why is the sectarian battling of a particlar concern to you? Is that you feel responsible for setting loose the monsters in Iraqi society that would do these things?

If so, your concern is misplaced. The monsters weren't only loose before, they had the run of the place.

If your concern is for our soldiers, then I can applaud the sentiment, but only to a degree.
1.15.2007 7:11pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
American P.
The people identify by religion, clan and tribe. We know this. But so do the Scots and they haven't had a clan feud in centuries. The Brits used to say civilization stopped at the Rhine and the Danube, that being as far as the Romans got. So what happened in Yugoslavia didn't really "count". What counted was, say, the Thirty Years War, and that was better than three centuries ago.
As I said before, someplace, the west is, generally, kind of "nice". They do pretty well slaughtering in war, but in between, they're congenial. To expect, without serious thought, much of it off limits due to the possibility of being a racist, that the sectarian violence in Iraq would be likely would be to expect the folks not to be "nice". And, in addition to PCness and the unconscious projection of niceness, we also presume that anybody who's a victim is innocent and nice. It doesn't occur to us that somebody who's a victim is somebody who wasn't paying attention or who was outgunned. When the circs change, maybe they'll be doing the slaughtering, but we don't actually think that. Victim=innocent, and that's the way it is. Iraqis were victims. Thus, they were innocent.
Unfortunately, there really are some innocents in Iraq, some honest, committed people. but once you get a single scruple, the terrs have an advantage. Because they will flat kill your grandkids in some horrid way and send you the tape so you can enjoy it. That's how they win hearts and minds. We use candy and volleyballs, and we're leaving, sooner or later.
1.15.2007 9:54pm
American Psikhushka (mail) (www):
Mr.X-

It is interesting that if Iraq had the extensive WMD program that Libya did (and which was ended solely by Libya fearing that the US would do to them what was done to Iraq), we would not be having this discussion.

No, we would still be having this discussion because even if he had an extensive WMD program he still didn't have the capability to deliver them effectively over long ranges. And if WMDs and regime change were the real reason why we were there, the troops would have been home years ago.
1.15.2007 11:36pm
American Psikhushka (mail) (www):
JSinAZ-

American Psikhushka, I would urge you to consider more than a single dimension when evaluating any aspect of the situation in Iraq - whether the ostensible rationales that led us there or the metrics used to declare victory, defeat (or even to measure if the battle is over).

I wouldn't consider my evaluation one-sided, the invasion and occupation is wrong for a number of reasons, and I have mentioned several of them in this thread alone.

Unfortunately, I would place this in the "best case", relitively unlikely, class of possible outcomes. The Iraq situation has always seemed to me like a lanced carbuncle for which we did not adequately select an antibiotic before letting the nasty out.

I would place this in the "pipe dream" class of outcomes. If you place the carbuncle on a rabid stray dog that we didn't need to mess with in the first place your analogy may be more accurate.

I understand the anger, but I believe that this comment betrays a lack of appreciation of the gravity of starting a war - once in, it is always much harder to decide to get out. In general, this is for a good reason.

This was me commenting on Richard Aubrey's theory, but the needless loss of life does make me angry. And there comes a time when you just have to cut your losses and pull out.

I would not have said "desired" as you did, just as I would not have said of the administration that "they were sociopaths". There is a terrible calculus to waging war, and very few of us in private life think in those terms.

Again, the theory that one of the unstated goals of the invasion and occupation was to trigger sectarian strife was Richard Aubrey's. Then I asked him why, if that was the goal, we were still there. If that was their goal then keeping the troops there after that has been accomplished shows a disregard of their well-being that is cold in the extreme, bordering on sociopathy.

I would ask you: why is the sectarian battling of a particlar concern to you? Is that you feel responsible for setting loose the monsters in Iraqi society that would do these things?

If so, your concern is misplaced. The monsters weren't only loose before, they had the run of the place.

If your concern is for our soldiers, then I can applaud the sentiment, but only to a degree.


Why does the sectarian strife concern me? Because its caused a lot of bloodshed and misery on all sides. Yes, some monsters had the run of the place before, but putting an end to that is pretty much the responsibility of the people who live there, not us. If we had to fight tyranny everywhere we would be broke and unable to accomplish anything else.
1.16.2007 12:00am
American Psikhushka (mail) (www):
Richard Aubrey-

The people identify by religion, clan and tribe. We know this. But so do the Scots and they haven't had a clan feud in centuries.

That's because the Scots haven't been that clannish in centuries. The Iraqis still are. (And that isn't a value judgment, its a statement of fact.)

Now what you say about some of the terrorist Iraqis is true. But that's exactly why it was such a stupid idea to attack them and create more enemies for no good reason. There was no connection to 9/11. Our resources and lives should have been conserved. The real focus should have been on hunting down those responsible for 9/11 - not on opening an unnecessary front, getting bogged down there, and creating more enemies.
1.16.2007 12:13am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
American P. I did not say one of the goals of invasion was to start sectarian violence. I said that most people were not capable of visualizing this result, and gave the reasons why I thought so.
Do you know any metric for quantifying clannishness?

We are not in this whole thing to find and bring to justice the perps of 9-11. With the exception of OBL and a couple of his lieutenants, and a few operatives currently unnamed--at least publicly--we got them already. And when we get the rest...? Does everything get nice and cozy?
Remember, we got the perps of the 1993 attack on the WTC and it didn't do us much good.
This is a war against Islamofascism when it's mixed with various ME issues such as the desire to destroy Israel.

It is a constant of a certain view that we are always "creating" more enemies, and picking a date certain before which, by implication, we had fewer or even none. Israel's troubles are always said to date from 1967, as if the arguers think we have forgotten the wars against Israel prior to that.

The goal, as has been explained until even you ought to have heard it, is to transform the tyrannies and feckless economies until they stop breeding terrorists. The problem is that this may not work. After all, there are about 1.2 billion Muslims, a tiny minority of whom (say, 5%) want to destroy us. So that's more than the population of Japan or Germany at the beginning of WW II, with the resources and background noise of their coreligionists who seem uninterested in stopping them. They are multi-state, non-state and we cannot threaten any particular state with devastation in retaliation for some massive terror act, since no particular state will have been responsible.
We have a problem and we didn't start it.
But we must finish it. One way or another.

Additionally, the people who say we should put more resources into whatever it is we aren't doing usually complain loudly when we do. Their point is not that we need more resources someplace else--that being an excuse--but that we need fewer resources in Iraq, and the hell with wherever we put the ones we withdraw.
How about all those "more troops" folks now that we have more troops. Are they celebrating? No. Just in case you haven't been paying attention.
1.16.2007 8:21am
mr.x (mail):
American Psikhushka -

No, we would still be having this discussion because even if he had an extensive WMD program he still didn't have the capability to deliver them effectively over long ranges.

Once the sanctions had been ended, it would have been a matter of months before more SCUDs had been purchased from Syria &North Korea. With the Baathists removed from power, this threat was eliminated before it became imminent. Plus, how hard is it to ship a kilo of anthrax into the US to some jihadist? Harder than shipping in a kilo of cocaine?

And if WMDs and regime change were the real reason why we were there, the troops would have been home years ago.

As many here have already noted, concern over the proliferation of WMDs was one stated reason, among several, but not the "real reason" or even the primary reason. But it is the one reason fixated upon by opponents of Bush, since only 700 chemical weapons and a surprisingly advanced but small scale biological weapons research program was found, instead of the thousands or tens of thousands of weapons thought to be there. Again, once the sanctions had been ended, it would be a relatively trivial matter for Iraq to start up chemical weapons production (making nerve gas is pretty easy if you have the facilities to make pesticides, which they do).

The Libyan WMD program was ended as a result of the Iraq invasion. Had Iraq had the same level of program, we would not be having this discussion. We'd be having a different discussion about how "Bush Lied!!!" about something else, like being mistaken about the resiliency of an insurgency supported, in part, by Iran &Syria.
1.16.2007 11:27am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Ref. nerve gas and pesticides.

Dual use facilities have three sets of dual uses.
The first is to make, say, pesticides or nerve gas. Hence the term "dual use".

The second is, when it's pointed out that a pesticide factory can make nerve gas and we might not want to sell them one, the lefties claim we don't like pesticides and probably want Iraqis to starve for lack of crops.

The third is, when the factories are discovered to be making nerve gas, the lefties point out that the US sold them.

And, just for grins, check out the Raid canister in the garage. The antidote is atropine. Which is what is issued to the troops when nerve gas is expected. Or,it was in my day. Perhaps something new is currently available. When the antidote is the same, the similarity of the compounds is close enough to make most thinking people nervous.
1.16.2007 12:18pm
disappointed VC reader:
Kudos to Stuart for asking a fascinating question. I was really looking forward to seeing it discussed here.

Brickbats to the majority of commentors for turning a potentially instructive discussion with implications for rhetoric, law, economics, and even science into episode #285,967 of Let's Argue The War!
1.18.2007 2:58pm
Murtazin (mail) (www):
We suggest cheapest prices for sildenafil citrate. Be sure
Follow the links:

[url=http:/generic-viagra-2.blogspot.com]Generic Viagra[/url]
[url=http://xpharmacy.org]buy viagra[/url]
[url=http://cheapest-pills.org]cheap levitra[/url]
[URL=http://pharm1.info]cheap viagra[/URL]
3.31.2007 3:11pm
Murtazin (mail) (www):
Cheapest prices for sildenafil citrate in these shops. Be sure
Follow the links:
[URL=http://pharm1.info/product.php?item=Cialis ]cheap cialis[/URL]
[URL=http://xafengyuan.com]cheap cialis[/URL]
[URL=http://formulam.net]viagra online[/URL]
[url=http://cheapest-pills.org]Cheap Levitra[/url]
[url=http://xparamacy.org]buy viagra[/url]
[url=http://generic-viagra-2.blogspot.com]generic viagra[/url]
please don't click if you don't need it, otherwise sure it is cheapest there
4.5.2007 2:43pm
Jonglly (mail) (www):
Before buying generic viagra read this.
I've got new info about [url=http://us-viagra.us]generic viagra[/url] and share with you.
4.27.2007 10:03am
buy-viagra (mail) (www):
http://www.buyviagrax.com - Acomplia
[url=http://www.theacomplia.com]generic acomplia[/url]
[url=http://www.penisenlargementpillz.com]penis enlargement pill[/url]
[url=http://www.hoodiaz.net]Hoodia[/url]
Buy Viagra
[url=http://www.buyviagrageneric.com]buy viagra[/url]
hoodia gordonii plus
[url=http://www.enlargementx.com]penis enlargement[/url]
[url=http://www.penis-enlargement-bigger.com]bigger penis enlargement[/url]
7.26.2007 7:35am
Frankyzd (mail) (www):
Hello

http://bodydoesinlongstayvicodinfrj.blogspot.com
http://valtrexbellspalseykjz.blogspot.com
http://vicodinopiatesscm.blogspot.com
http://diphenhydraminevicodinwithdrawalmfu.blogspot.com
http://viagraonlinebiz.blogspot.com
http://bestpricegenericviagraaka.blogspot.com
http://viagradosagerecommendationbmj.blogspot.com
http://5113vicodinnzf.blogspot.com
http://xanaxwallpapergdb.blogspot.com
http://excretionofxanaxfvv.blogspot.com
http://valtrex500mgdailyzhr.blogspot.com
http://onlineorderingxanaxndg.blogspot.com
http://dosesofvicodingiv.blogspot.com
http://brandgenericonlineviagraynt.blogspot.com
http://valiumdrugfactsxhw.blogspot.com
http://cheapgenericviagrasubstitutesxoj.blogspot.com
http://buyinspainviagraezu.blogspot.com
http://mexicanvicodinjxz.blogspot.com
http://valtrexandzoviraxdkn.blogspot.com
http://viagrahghhjp.blogspot.com
10.3.2007 1:16am
HillaGuinivar (mail) (www):
Ouh, you should look this [url=http://kirstenstormsboyfriend.hostnetpro.com] (id.8341)[/url]
12.25.2007 10:13pm
rekrutdlianov (mail) (www):
Payday loan
[url=http://groups.msn.com/bestpaydayloan/]payday loan[/url]
1.16.2008 8:16pm
DrBrren (mail) (www):
Our online pharmacy store is the perfect resource for people to get their drugs without any hassles or awkwardness. We work hard to make sure you save money every time you shop with us. At our online store, you pay less and get more.
Buy kamagra, cialis, levitra, flomax online
4.5.2008 9:43am
mp3 (mail) (www):
Nice site!
4.16.2008 5:08am
buy doxycycline (www):
buy doxycycline online
buy doxycycline
http://www.flixster.com/user/bereny
[url=http://www.flixster.com/user/bereny]buy doxycycline[/url]
5.10.2008 12:41am
Kazelihn (mail) (www):
Hi!llsh! http://vwzobwxy.com fswqc upfkh http://doioqcxk.com ythha cjmyr
5.10.2008 11:15am
Kazelprt (mail) (www):
5.10.2008 11:16am
Kazelash (mail) (www):
5.11.2008 1:43am
Kazelxmo (mail) (www):
5.11.2008 1:43am
buy doxycycline (www):
buy doxycycline online
buy doxycycline
http://www.youtube.com/predoxycycline
[url=http://www.youtube.com/predoxycycline]buy doxycycline[/url]
5.11.2008 7:26pm
soma (mail) (www):
Hi! soma
5.12.2008 10:24am
nexium (mail) (www):
Hi! nexium
5.13.2008 6:18am
viagra online (mail) (www):
5.13.2008 1:43pm
clomid (mail) (www):
Hi! clomid
5.13.2008 2:00pm
hoodia (mail) (www):
Hi! hoodia
5.13.2008 2:14pm
lexapro (mail) (www):
5.13.2008 2:26pm
celebrex (mail) (www):
5.13.2008 2:38pm
crestor (mail) (www):
5.13.2008 2:53pm
celebrex (mail) (www):
5.13.2008 3:34pm
lexapro (mail) (www):
5.14.2008 1:44am
lipitor (mail) (www):
5.14.2008 1:56am
zyrtec (mail) (www):
Hi! zyrtec
5.14.2008 2:07am
clomid (mail) (www):
Hi! clomid
5.14.2008 2:19am
cipro (mail) (www):
Hi! cipro
5.14.2008 2:32am
tamiflu (mail) (www):
5.14.2008 2:44am
neurontin (mail) (www):
5.14.2008 2:56am
nolvadex (mail) (www):
5.14.2008 3:08am
diovan (mail) (www):
Hi! diovan
5.14.2008 3:20am
synthroid (mail) (www):
5.14.2008 3:32am
plavix (mail) (www):
Hi! plavix
5.14.2008 3:45am
paxil (mail) (www):
Hi! paxil
5.14.2008 3:57am
valium online (mail) (www):
5.14.2008 11:28am
cheap phentermi (mail) (www):
5.14.2008 12:03pm
buy valium (mail) (www):
5.14.2008 12:19pm
lexapro (mail) (www):
5.14.2008 10:56pm
lipitor (mail) (www):
5.15.2008 1:10am
hoodia gordonii (mail) (www):
5.15.2008 1:23am
effexor (mail) (www):
5.15.2008 1:36am
tamiflu (mail) (www):
5.15.2008 1:47am
crestor (mail) (www):
5.15.2008 1:59am
neurontin (mail) (www):
5.15.2008 2:10am
buy doxycycline (www):
buy doxycycline online
buy doxycycline
http://buydoxycyclineonline.com/?cat=14
[url=http://buydoxycyclineonline.com/?cat=14]buy doxycycline[/url]
5.15.2008 3:27am
lexapro (mail) (www):
5.15.2008 5:33am
lipitor (mail) (www):
5.15.2008 5:45am
hoodia (mail) (www):
Hi! hoodia
5.15.2008 5:57am
effexor (mail) (www):
5.15.2008 6:10am
zyrtec (mail) (www):
Hi! zyrtec
5.15.2008 6:23am
clomid (mail) (www):
Hi! clomid
5.15.2008 6:35am
celebrex (mail) (www):
5.15.2008 6:47am
nexium (mail) (www):
Hi! nexium
5.15.2008 6:59am
paxil (mail) (www):
Hi! paxil
5.15.2008 7:12am
nolvadex (mail) (www):
5.15.2008 7:24am
cipro (mail) (www):
Hi! cipro
5.15.2008 7:36am
coumadin (mail) (www):
5.15.2008 7:48am
valium (mail) (www):
Hi! valium
5.15.2008 1:12pm
cheapest cialis (mail) (www):
5.15.2008 1:40pm
celebrex (mail) (www):
5.15.2008 2:14pm
cipro (mail) (www):
5.15.2008 2:46pm
neurontin (mail) (www):
5.15.2008 3:23pm
buy viagra (mail) (www):
5.15.2008 3:45pm
lexapro (mail) (www):
5.15.2008 6:33pm
lipitor (mail) (www):
5.15.2008 6:45pm
hoodia (mail) (www):
Hi! hoodia
5.15.2008 6:58pm
effexor (mail) (www):
5.15.2008 7:10pm
zyrtec (mail) (www):
Hi! zyrtec
5.15.2008 7:22pm
clomid (mail) (www):
Hi! clomid
5.15.2008 7:33pm
celebrex (mail) (www):
5.15.2008 7:45pm
nexium (mail) (www):
Hi! nexium
5.15.2008 7:57pm
tamiflu (mail) (www):
5.15.2008 8:10pm
paxil (mail) (www):
Hi! paxil
5.15.2008 8:22pm
nolvadex (mail) (www):
5.15.2008 8:34pm
cipro (mail) (www):
Hi! cipro
5.15.2008 8:46pm
coumadin (mail) (www):
5.15.2008 8:57pm
crestor (mail) (www):
5.15.2008 9:08pm
depakote (mail) (www):
5.15.2008 9:20pm
diovan (mail) (www):
Hi! diovan
5.15.2008 9:32pm
flomax (mail) (www):
Hi! flomax
5.15.2008 9:44pm
neurontin (mail) (www):
5.15.2008 9:56pm
plavix (mail) (www):
Hi! plavix
5.15.2008 10:08pm
prevacid (mail) (www):
5.15.2008 10:20pm
synthroid (mail) (www):
5.15.2008 10:32pm
lasix (mail) (www):
Hi! lasix
5.15.2008 10:44pm
buy viagra (mail) (www):
5.16.2008 12:25am
clomid (mail) (www):
5.16.2008 12:38am
paxil (mail) (www):
5.16.2008 12:50am
nolvadex (mail) (www):
5.16.2008 1:01am
Kazelqbw (mail) (www):
Hi!qcme! http://gedgvkcx.com jldie zmaee http://qzrdqmxb.com bhbsm ergmp
5.18.2008 1:14pm
Kazelifv (mail) (www):
5.18.2008 1:16pm
Kazeljys (mail) (www):
5.18.2008 8:22pm
lexapro (mail) (www):
5.19.2008 1:10am
lipitor (mail) (www):
5.19.2008 1:19am
zyrtec (mail) (www):
Hi! zyrtec
5.19.2008 1:28am
clomid (mail) (www):
Hi! clomid
5.19.2008 1:37am
celebrex (mail) (www):
5.19.2008 1:46am
nexium (mail) (www):
Hi! nexium
5.19.2008 1:57am
tamiflu (mail) (www):
5.19.2008 2:07am
paxil (mail) (www):
Hi! paxil
5.19.2008 2:16am
nolvadex (mail) (www):
5.19.2008 2:25am
cipro (mail) (www):
Hi! cipro
5.19.2008 2:35am
coumadin (mail) (www):
5.19.2008 2:44am
crestor (mail) (www):
5.19.2008 2:54am
depakote (mail) (www):
5.19.2008 3:05am
diovan (mail) (www):
Hi! diovan
5.19.2008 3:14am
flomax (mail) (www):
Hi! flomax
5.19.2008 3:25am
lasix (mail) (www):
Hi! lasix
5.19.2008 3:37am
neurontin (mail) (www):
5.19.2008 3:47am
plavix (mail) (www):
Hi! plavix
5.19.2008 3:59am
prevacid (mail) (www):
5.19.2008 4:10am
synthroid (mail) (www):
5.19.2008 4:23am
cialis online (mail) (www):
5.19.2008 7:41am
viagra online (mail) (www):
5.19.2008 8:18am
zyrtec (mail) (www):
5.19.2008 8:30am
paxil (mail) (www):
5.19.2008 8:44am
synthroid (mail) (www):
5.19.2008 8:57am
lexapro (mail) (www):
5.19.2008 11:41am
lipitor (mail) (www):
5.19.2008 11:56am
zyrtec (mail) (www):
Hi! zyrtec
5.19.2008 12:12pm
clomid (mail) (www):
Hi! clomid
5.19.2008 12:25pm
celebrex (mail) (www):
5.19.2008 12:38pm
nexium (mail) (www):
Hi! nexium
5.19.2008 12:51pm
tamiflu (mail) (www):
5.19.2008 1:01pm
paxil (mail) (www):
Hi! paxil
5.19.2008 1:12pm
generic cialis (mail) (www):
5.20.2008 6:07am
levitra online (mail) (www):
5.20.2008 6:43am
buy levitra onl (mail) (www):
5.20.2008 12:20pm
lipitor (mail) (www):
5.20.2008 5:05pm
valium online (mail) (www):
5.20.2008 7:27pm
cialis online (mail) (www):
5.20.2008 9:18pm
levitra online (mail) (www):
5.20.2008 9:55pm
clomid (mail) (www):
Hi! clomid
5.20.2008 10:30pm
celebrex (mail) (www):
5.20.2008 11:07pm
tamiflu (mail) (www):
5.20.2008 11:43pm
paxil (mail) (www):
Hi! paxil
5.21.2008 12:22am
nolvadex (mail) (www):
5.21.2008 12:56am
cipro (mail) (www):
Hi! cipro
5.21.2008 1:34am
coumadin (mail) (www):
5.21.2008 2:10am
crestor (mail) (www):
5.21.2008 2:47am
depakote (mail) (www):
5.21.2008 3:24am
hoodia gordonii (mail) (www):
5.21.2008 4:36am
nexium (mail) (www):
5.21.2008 5:14am
coumadin (mail) (www):
5.21.2008 5:51am
plavix (mail) (www):
5.21.2008 6:30am
hoodia (mail) (www):
5.21.2008 8:20am
effexor (mail) (www):
5.21.2008 9:34am
diovan (mail) (www):
Hi! diovan
5.21.2008 2:21pm
doxycycline (www):
doxycycline online
doxycycline
http://www.youtube.com/GerrySoerman
[url=http://www.youtube.com/GerrySoerman]doxycycline[/url]
order viagra
http://www.youtube.com/Billviagradone
[url=http://www.youtube.com/Billviagradone]order viagra[/url]
5.21.2008 3:36pm
lexapro (mail) (www):
5.21.2008 8:13pm
lipitor (mail) (www):
5.21.2008 8:51pm
celebrex (mail) (www):
5.21.2008 9:26pm
nexium (mail) (www):
Hi! nexium
5.21.2008 10:03pm
tamiflu (mail) (www):
5.21.2008 10:38pm
crestor (mail) (www):
5.21.2008 11:15pm
depakote (mail) (www):
5.21.2008 11:52pm
zyrtec (mail) (www):
Hi! zyrtec
5.22.2008 6:38am
Pharm76 (mail) (www):
Very nice site!
cheap viagra
5.22.2008 8:36am
zyrtec (mail) (www):
Hi! zyrtec
5.22.2008 8:50am
clomid (mail) (www):
Hi! clomid
5.22.2008 8:59am
celebrex (mail) (www):
5.22.2008 9:08am
nexium (mail) (www):
Hi! nexium
5.22.2008 9:18am
tamiflu (mail) (www):
5.22.2008 9:27am
paxil (mail) (www):
Hi! paxil
5.22.2008 9:36am
lexapro (mail) (www):
5.22.2008 10:28am
lipitor (mail) (www):
5.22.2008 10:37am
zyrtec (mail) (www):
Hi! zyrtec
5.22.2008 10:46am
diovan (mail) (www):
Hi! diovan
5.22.2008 12:19pm
flomax (mail) (www):
Hi! flomax
5.22.2008 12:28pm
lasix (mail) (www):
Hi! lasix
5.22.2008 12:37pm
neurontin (mail) (www):
5.22.2008 12:46pm
plavix (mail) (www):
Hi! plavix
5.22.2008 12:55pm
prevacid (mail) (www):
5.22.2008 1:04pm
synthroid (mail) (www):
5.22.2008 1:13pm
valium (mail) (www):
Hi! valium
5.22.2008 1:32pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
5.23.2008 10:04am
tramadol (mail) (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
tramadol
tramadol
cialis
phentermine
viagra
5.23.2008 3:43pm
buy phentermine (mail) (www):
5.23.2008 4:43pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great site. Good info
tramadol
tramadol
cialis
phentermine
viagra
5.23.2008 8:30pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Incredible site!
tramadol
cialis
xanax
phentermine
5.24.2008 1:17am
tramadol (mail) (www):
5.24.2008 1:26am
cialis online (mail) (www):
5.24.2008 4:54am
flomax online (mail) (www):
5.24.2008 5:29am
buy levitra onl (mail) (www):
5.24.2008 5:35am
tramadol (mail) (www):
5.24.2008 6:20am
generic viagra (mail) (www):
5.24.2008 8:26am
generic cialis (mail) (www):
5.24.2008 9:06am
buy levitra onl (mail) (www):
5.24.2008 9:48am
zyrtec 10 mg (mail) (www):
5.24.2008 10:29am
clomid (mail) (www):
Hi! clomid
5.24.2008 11:10am
celebrex (mail) (www):
5.24.2008 11:52am
tramadol (mail) (www):
5.24.2008 12:15pm
nexium (mail) (www):
Hi! nexium
5.24.2008 12:32pm
paxil (mail) (www):
Hi! paxil
5.24.2008 1:12pm
nolvadex (mail) (www):
5.24.2008 1:52pm
cipro (mail) (www):
Hi! cipro
5.24.2008 2:32pm
coumadin (mail) (www):
5.24.2008 3:13pm
crestor (mail) (www):
5.24.2008 3:56pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
tramadol
cialis
xanax
phentermine
5.24.2008 4:37pm
depakote (mail) (www):
5.24.2008 4:39pm
diovan (mail) (www):
5.24.2008 5:20pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great work,webmaster,nice design!
tramadol
tramadol
cialis
phentermine
viagra
5.25.2008 3:33am
tramadol (mail) (www):
5.25.2008 4:57am
zyrtec (mail) (www):
5.25.2008 5:02am
nolvadex (mail) (www):
5.25.2008 5:38am
diovan (mail) (www):
5.25.2008 6:16am
prevacid (mail) (www):
5.25.2008 6:53am
tramadol (mail) (www):
5.25.2008 1:44pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
tramadol
tramadol
cialis
phentermine
viagra
5.25.2008 2:39pm
nolvadex (mail) (www):
5.25.2008 4:30pm
diovan (mail) (www):
Hi! diovan
5.25.2008 5:09pm
plavix (mail) (www):
Hi! plavix
5.25.2008 5:46pm
prevacid (mail) (www):
5.25.2008 6:23pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
xanax
buy viagra
cialis
buy phentermine
cheap tramadol
5.25.2008 7:36pm
nolvadex (mail) (www):
5.25.2008 7:39pm
flomax (mail) (www):
Hi! flomax
5.25.2008 9:29pm
lasix (mail) (www):
Hi! lasix
5.25.2008 10:06pm
neurontin (mail) (www):
5.25.2008 10:45pm
plavix (mail) (www):
Hi! plavix
5.25.2008 11:22pm
prevacid (mail) (www):
5.26.2008 12:00am
synthroid (mail) (www):
5.26.2008 12:37am
tramadol (mail) (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
tramadol
tramadol
cialis
phentermine
viagra
5.26.2008 6:32am
lasix (mail) (www):
Hi! lasix
5.26.2008 10:42am
propecia (mail) (www):
5.26.2008 10:54am
clomid (mail) (www):
Hi! clomid
5.26.2008 11:24am
allegra (mail) (www):
5.26.2008 11:55am
zyban (mail) (www):
Hi! zyban
5.26.2008 12:06pm
zyprexa (mail) (www):
5.26.2008 12:16pm
zithromax (mail) (www):
5.26.2008 12:26pm
lamisil (mail) (www):
5.26.2008 12:35pm
hoodia (mail) (www):
5.26.2008 1:15pm
nexium (mail) (www):
5.26.2008 1:24pm
coumadin (mail) (www):
5.26.2008 1:35pm
lasix (mail) (www):
5.26.2008 1:44pm
buy propecia (mail) (www):
5.26.2008 2:14pm
clomid (mail) (www):
Hi! clomid
5.26.2008 2:55pm
valium (mail) (www):
Hi! valium
5.26.2008 3:15pm
generic viagra (mail) (www):
5.26.2008 4:16pm
buy valium (mail) (www):
5.26.2008 4:26pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
tramadol
cialis
xanax
phentermine
5.26.2008 5:39pm
tramadol (www):
5.26.2008 9:08pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
5.26.2008 9:08pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Perfect site, i like it!
tramadol
tramadol
cialis
phentermine
viagra
5.26.2008 10:46pm
buy valium (mail) (www):
5.27.2008 3:32am
valium online (mail) (www):
5.27.2008 3:44am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Nice site! Thank you!
tramadol
cialis
xanax
phentermine
5.27.2008 3:59am
buy cialis (mail) (www):
5.27.2008 4:25am
cheap propecia (mail) (www):
5.27.2008 4:31am
levitra online (mail) (www):
5.27.2008 5:05am
tramadol (mail) (www):
5.27.2008 5:15am
tramadol (www):
5.27.2008 5:52am
tramadol (mail) (www):
5.27.2008 8:27am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great site. Good info
tramadol
cialis
xanax
phentermine
5.27.2008 9:06am
valium (mail) (www):
Hi! valium
5.27.2008 9:34am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great site. Good info
tramadol
tramadol
cialis
phentermine
viagra
5.27.2008 3:21pm
lasix (mail) (www):
Hi! lasix
5.27.2008 3:28pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
5.28.2008 12:43am
viagra online (mail) (www):
5.28.2008 4:01am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great work,webmaster,nice design!
buy tramadol
cheap phentermine
xanax
cheap viagra
buy cialis
5.28.2008 10:11am
tramadol (mail) (www):
5.28.2008 12:46pm
hoodia (mail) (www):
Hi! hoodia
5.28.2008 3:30pm
effexor (mail) (www):
5.28.2008 4:20pm
tramadol (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy viagra
cheap xanax
phentermine
cialis
tramadol
5.28.2008 5:02pm
zyrtec (mail) (www):
Hi! zyrtec
5.28.2008 5:11pm
clomid (mail) (www):
Hi! clomid
5.28.2008 6:02pm
celebrex (mail) (www):
5.28.2008 6:51pm
nexium (mail) (www):
Hi! nexium
5.28.2008 7:43pm
tamiflu (mail) (www):
5.28.2008 8:33pm
paxil (mail) (www):
Hi! paxil
5.28.2008 9:26pm
nolvadex (mail) (www):
5.28.2008 10:18pm
cipro (mail) (www):
Hi! cipro
5.28.2008 11:07pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
tramadol
tramadol
cialis
phentermine
viagra
5.28.2008 11:22pm
coumadin (mail) (www):
5.28.2008 11:56pm
crestor (mail) (www):
5.29.2008 12:43am
tramadol (www):
5.29.2008 1:16am
depakote (mail) (www):
5.29.2008 1:35am
diovan (mail) (www):
Hi! diovan
5.29.2008 2:22am
flomax (mail) (www):
Hi! flomax
5.29.2008 3:08am
lasix (mail) (www):
Hi! lasix
5.29.2008 3:58am
neurontin (mail) (www):
5.29.2008 4:46am
plavix (mail) (www):
Hi! plavix
5.29.2008 5:37am
tramadol (mail) (www):
5.29.2008 5:54am
prevacid (mail) (www):
5.29.2008 6:27am
synthroid (mail) (www):
5.29.2008 7:17am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great work,webmaster,nice design!
buy tramadol
phentermine
cheap xanax
viagra
cialis
5.29.2008 11:38am
tramadol (mail) (www):
5.29.2008 8:11pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
xanax
cheap cialis
buy viagra
phentermine
tramadol
5.29.2008 8:13pm
phentermine wit (mail) (www):
5.29.2008 9:13pm
phentermine 37. (mail) (www):
5.29.2008 9:54pm
phentermine buy (mail) (www):
5.29.2008 10:35pm
phentermine onl (mail) (www):
5.29.2008 11:15pm
discount phente (mail) (www):
5.29.2008 11:59pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great work,webmaster,nice design!
buy xanax
cheap tramadol
phentermine
buy cialis
5.30.2008 1:42am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
xanax
buy viagra
cheap cialis
cheap phentermine
buy tramadol
5.30.2008 3:58am
tramadol (mail) (www):
5.30.2008 4:08am
tramadol (mail) (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
tramadol
tramadol
xanax
tramadol
xanax
5.30.2008 5:48am
viagra online (mail) (www):
5.30.2008 6:47am
generic viagra (mail) (www):
5.30.2008 7:29am
tramadol (mail) (www):
5.30.2008 9:34am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
tramadol
tramadol
xanax
tramadol
xanax
5.30.2008 10:40am
tramadol (mail) (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
buy viagra
cialis
xanax
phentermine
tramadol
5.30.2008 11:15am
generic cialis (mail) (www):
5.30.2008 11:36am
tramadol (mail) (www):
5.30.2008 12:54pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
cheap xanax
viagra
buy phentermine
cheap tramadol
cialis
5.30.2008 1:24pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
tramadol
tramadol
xanax
tramadol
xanax
5.30.2008 3:56pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
5.30.2008 7:24pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
5.30.2008 8:14pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
5.30.2008 9:14pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
5.30.2008 10:02pm
cialis online (mail) (www):
5.30.2008 10:12pm
levitra online (mail) (www):
5.31.2008 5:42am
viagra uk (mail) (www):
5.31.2008 8:37am
tramadol (mail) (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
tramadol
tramadol
xanax
tramadol
xanax
5.31.2008 9:01am
viagra online (mail) (www):
5.31.2008 9:21am
valium (mail) (www):
Hi! valium
5.31.2008 10:01am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great work,webmaster,nice design!
buy viagra
buy tramadol
buy xanax
phentermine
cheap cialis
5.31.2008 10:04am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
buy tramadol
phentermine
xanax
viagra
buy cialis
5.31.2008 10:04am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great .Now i can say thank you!
viagra
cialis
xanax
phentermine
cheap tramadol
5.31.2008 11:52am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
tramadol
tramadol
xanax
tramadol
xanax
5.31.2008 1:24pm
synthroid (mail) (www):
5.31.2008 2:56pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
tramadol
tramadol
xanax
tramadol
xanax
5.31.2008 5:38pm
nolvadex (mail) (www):
5.31.2008 6:25pm
nolvadex (mail) (www):
6.2.2008 5:40am
clomid (mail) (www):
Hi! clomid
6.2.2008 6:34am
synthroid (mail) (www):
6.2.2008 7:25am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
tramadol
tramadol
xanax
tramadol
xanax
6.2.2008 7:42am
propecia (mail) (www):
6.2.2008 8:17am
zyrtec (mail) (www):
Hi! zyrtec
6.2.2008 11:51am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
tramadol
tramadol
xanax
tramadol
xanax
6.2.2008 12:58pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.2.2008 1:41pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.2.2008 4:01pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
tramadol
tramadol
xanax
tramadol
xanax
6.2.2008 6:04pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy tramadol
buy phentermine
buy xanax
viagra
buy cialis
6.2.2008 6:35pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.2.2008 8:18pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
tramadol
tramadol
xanax
tramadol
xanax
6.2.2008 9:57pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.2.2008 10:14pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.3.2008 12:27am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
tramadol
tramadol
xanax
tramadol
xanax
6.3.2008 2:12am
generic cialis (mail) (www):
6.3.2008 2:52am
generic cialis (mail) (www):
6.3.2008 6:03am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great work,webmaster,nice design!
tramadol
tramadol
xanax
tramadol
xanax
6.3.2008 6:47am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.3.2008 6:53am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.3.2008 8:34am
phentermine no (mail) (www):
6.3.2008 8:42am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Nice site! Thank you!
tramadol
tramadol
xanax
tramadol
xanax
6.3.2008 12:06pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.3.2008 12:41pm
buy valium onli (mail) (www):
6.3.2008 1:23pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great site. Good info
tramadol
tramadol
xanax
tramadol
xanax
6.3.2008 5:17pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.3.2008 11:29pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
viagra
buy phentermine
tramadol
xanax
cialis
6.4.2008 2:47am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
cheap tramadol
phentermine
buy xanax
cheap viagra
buy cialis
6.4.2008 6:33am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
cheap viagra
tramadol
xanax
phentermine
cialis
6.4.2008 6:33am
tramadol (mail) (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
tramadol
tramadol
xanax
tramadol
xanax
6.4.2008 12:12pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
buy viagra
buy tramadol
xanax
buy phentermine
cialis
6.4.2008 6:35pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.4.2008 8:24pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.4.2008 9:22pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great site. Good info
tramadol
tramadol
xanax
tramadol
xanax
6.4.2008 10:35pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great .Now i can say thank you!
tramadol
tramadol
xanax
tramadol
xanax
6.5.2008 2:49am
tramadol (mail) (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
viagra
buy cialis
cheap xanax
cheap phentermine
tramadol
6.5.2008 2:57am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great work,webmaster,nice design!
buy phentermine
xanax
cheap viagra
buy cialis
tramadol
6.5.2008 3:07am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.5.2008 3:26am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Perfect site, i like it!
tramadol
tramadol
xanax
tramadol
xanax
6.5.2008 7:39am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
viagra
cheap tramadol
xanax
phentermine
cheap cialis
6.5.2008 1:38pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great work,webmaster,nice design!
tramadol
buy phentermine
xanax
buy viagra
cheap cialis
6.5.2008 1:39pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
viagra
cialis
buy xanax
buy phentermine
buy tramadol
6.5.2008 3:55pm
carstayred (mail) (www):
were having When beech log. personalities. Street When then. snapping to dine I even
6.5.2008 4:51pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.5.2008 5:55pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.5.2008 5:55pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
cheap cialis
tramadol
buy xanax
cheap phentermine
viagra
6.5.2008 7:48pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
viagra
buy tramadol
phentermine
cialis
cheap xanax
6.5.2008 9:12pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
buy tramadol
cheap xanax
cheap phentermine
cheap viagra
buy cialis
6.5.2008 9:12pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.6.2008 5:00am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.6.2008 5:00am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
tramadol
buy viagra
buy cialis
phentermine
xanax
6.6.2008 5:12am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.6.2008 5:13am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy phentermine
buy cialis
tramadol
xanax
viagra
6.6.2008 5:14am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.6.2008 9:58am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
xanax
cialis
cheap viagra
phentermine
cheap tramadol
6.6.2008 12:35pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.6.2008 1:16pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.6.2008 1:21pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.6.2008 5:02pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
cheap cialis
cheap tramadol
buy xanax
phentermine
viagra
6.6.2008 8:48pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.7.2008 3:44am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
cialis
tramadol
xanax
buy phentermine
viagra
6.7.2008 6:03am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.7.2008 5:33pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.7.2008 8:04pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.7.2008 8:04pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.8.2008 6:18am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
cheap cialis
buy phentermine
tramadol
cheap viagra
xanax
6.8.2008 1:28pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.8.2008 1:29pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.8.2008 5:03pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great .Now i can say thank you!
cheap cialis
phentermine
buy tramadol
viagra
xanax
6.8.2008 6:18pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.8.2008 9:16pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
cheap xanax
phentermine
buy cialis
viagra
tramadol
6.8.2008 10:39pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
cialis
buy tramadol
cheap xanax
buy phentermine
cheap viagra
6.9.2008 3:23am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great work,webmaster,nice design!
xanax
cheap viagra
buy phentermine
cheap cialis
tramadol
6.9.2008 3:41am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
tramadol
phentermine
buy xanax
cheap viagra
cheap cialis
6.9.2008 9:35am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
buy tramadol
viagra
cialis
phentermine
buy xanax
6.9.2008 12:33pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
cheap viagra
cialis
xanax
cheap phentermine
cheap tramadol
6.9.2008 1:46pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.9.2008 4:01pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
xanax
phentermine
buy cialis
buy viagra
cheap tramadol
6.9.2008 4:01pm
tramadol (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
cialis
xanax
tramadol
phentermine
buy viagra
6.9.2008 6:17pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
xanax
cheap phentermine
cialis
viagra
cheap tramadol
6.9.2008 8:48pm
tramadol (www):
Great .Now i can say thank you!
cialis
xanax
tramadol
phentermine
cheap viagra
6.9.2008 10:37pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
viagra
buy tramadol
cialis
buy phentermine
xanax
6.10.2008 8:32am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.10.2008 5:39pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
cialis
xanax
cheap phentermine
buy tramadol
viagra
6.10.2008 5:39pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.10.2008 6:43pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great .Now i can say thank you!
cialis
tramadol
phentermine
buy xanax
viagra
6.10.2008 8:30pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
cheap cialis
buy xanax
buy phentermine
buy tramadol
viagra
6.10.2008 10:34pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
cheap cialis
buy viagra
tramadol
buy xanax
phentermine
6.11.2008 2:56pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great work,webmaster,nice design!
cheap viagra
tramadol
cialis
phentermine
xanax
6.11.2008 2:56pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
viagra
cheap tramadol
xanax
buy phentermine
buy cialis
6.11.2008 2:57pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.11.2008 4:25pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
xanax
viagra
phentermine
cheap cialis
buy tramadol
6.11.2008 10:09pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.11.2008 10:09pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
cialis
xanax
buy phentermine
tramadol
viagra
6.11.2008 10:56pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
cheap cialis
viagra
tramadol
xanax
phentermine
6.11.2008 11:48pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
xanax
phentermine
cheap tramadol
viagra
cialis
6.12.2008 12:55am
tramadol (www):
6.12.2008 3:03am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
buy cialis
cheap phentermine
buy tramadol
cheap viagra
cheap xanax
6.12.2008 7:15am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great site. Keep doing.
cialis
tramadol
viagra
xanax
phentermine
6.12.2008 7:16am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
cialis
viagra
tramadol
xanax
phentermine
6.12.2008 9:01am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
viagra
buy tramadol
xanax
cheap phentermine
cialis
6.12.2008 9:01am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.12.2008 11:01am
tramadol (mail) (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
cialis
buy phentermine
cheap tramadol
buy viagra
xanax
6.12.2008 11:56am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
cialis
cheap xanax
cheap phentermine
tramadol
viagra
6.12.2008 12:02pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
cialis
tramadol
viagra
xanax
phentermine
6.12.2008 12:04pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great work,webmaster,nice design!
viagra
buy tramadol
xanax
cialis
phentermine
6.12.2008 2:05pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.12.2008 4:44pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
cheap viagra
cheap tramadol
cialis
buy phentermine
xanax
6.12.2008 6:12pm
tramadol (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
cheap phentermine
buy xanax
buy cialis
cheap tramadol
viagra
6.12.2008 6:32pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great .Now i can say thank you!
buy cialis
cheap tramadol
buy phentermine
buy xanax
viagra
6.12.2008 6:32pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great work,webmaster,nice design!
cialis
cheap tramadol
buy viagra
xanax
buy phentermine
6.12.2008 6:32pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.12.2008 7:14pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.12.2008 11:25pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
phentermine
xanax
tramadol
buy viagra
buy cialis
6.12.2008 11:28pm
tramadol (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
phentermine
xanax
cialis
cheap tramadol
cheap viagra
6.12.2008 11:29pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great .Now i can say thank you!
buy cialis
buy phentermine
tramadol
viagra
cheap xanax
6.13.2008 12:19am
tramadol (mail) (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
cheap xanax
viagra
phentermine
buy cialis
tramadol
6.13.2008 12:20am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.13.2008 3:01am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
cheap tramadol
xanax
cheap phentermine
viagra
buy cialis
6.13.2008 3:56am
tramadol (www):
6.13.2008 4:33am
tramadol (www):
6.13.2008 5:23am
tramadol (mail) (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
cheap cialis
cheap xanax
phentermine
cheap tramadol
viagra
6.13.2008 5:23am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.13.2008 5:23am
tramadol (mail) (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
cheap viagra
tramadol
buy xanax
cialis
phentermine
6.13.2008 7:45am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.13.2008 7:45am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.13.2008 11:41am
tramadol (www):
6.13.2008 1:08pm
tramadol (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
cheap cialis
buy xanax
cheap tramadol
cheap phentermine
buy viagra
6.13.2008 5:16pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
buy cialis
xanax
cheap phentermine
tramadol
viagra
6.13.2008 5:46pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
cialis
buy viagra
tramadol
cheap xanax
phentermine
6.13.2008 7:04pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.13.2008 8:43pm
tramadol (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
phentermine
buy xanax
buy cialis
tramadol
viagra
6.13.2008 10:20pm
tramadol (www):
6.13.2008 10:21pm
tramadol (www):
Perfect site, i like it!
phentermine
xanax
cialis
cheap tramadol
viagra
6.13.2008 11:55pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.14.2008 12:57am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.14.2008 2:46am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great work,webmaster,nice design!
cheap cialis
viagra
tramadol
buy xanax
buy phentermine
6.14.2008 2:47am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.14.2008 3:20am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great work,webmaster,nice design!
buy cialis
cheap phentermine
cheap tramadol
buy viagra
xanax
6.14.2008 3:20am
tramadol (www):
Perfect site, i like it!
phentermine
xanax
cheap cialis
tramadol
viagra
6.14.2008 8:51am
tramadol (mail) (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
xanax
phentermine
buy cialis
buy viagra
tramadol
6.14.2008 8:52am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
buy xanax
buy viagra
phentermine
cialis
tramadol
6.14.2008 8:52am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.14.2008 1:35pm
tramadol (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
buy cialis
cheap xanax
tramadol
buy phentermine
viagra
6.14.2008 2:16pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.14.2008 2:20pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great .Now i can say thank you!
phentermine
buy xanax
buy tramadol
viagra
cheap cialis
6.14.2008 2:25pm
tramadol (www):
6.14.2008 2:48pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.14.2008 2:50pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.14.2008 3:37pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.14.2008 6:16pm
tramadol (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
cheap cialis
xanax
buy tramadol
phentermine
viagra
6.14.2008 7:39pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.14.2008 7:39pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.14.2008 7:41pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
xanax
buy phentermine
buy cialis
buy viagra
tramadol
6.14.2008 8:51pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Perfect site, i like it!
cialis
tramadol
viagra
xanax
phentermine
6.14.2008 8:54pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
buy tramadol
buy xanax
cheap phentermine
cheap viagra
cialis
6.14.2008 9:21pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.15.2008 12:20am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great work,webmaster,nice design!
cheap xanax
viagra
buy phentermine
cialis
tramadol
6.15.2008 12:21am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.15.2008 12:21am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great work,webmaster,nice design!
viagra
tramadol
phentermine
cialis
buy xanax
6.15.2008 1:37am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Perfect site, i like it!
xanax
viagra
phentermine
cialis
buy tramadol
6.15.2008 3:36am
tramadol (mail) (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
phentermine
xanax
tramadol
cheap viagra
cialis
6.15.2008 3:39am
tramadol (www):
6.15.2008 6:01am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.15.2008 6:02am
tramadol (www):
Great .Now i can say thank you!
cialis
xanax
tramadol
cheap phentermine
viagra
6.15.2008 6:02am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
cialis
buy xanax
phentermine
tramadol
viagra
6.15.2008 6:03am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
buy xanax
buy viagra
cheap phentermine
buy cialis
tramadol
6.15.2008 6:03am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great .Now i can say thank you!
cialis
cheap phentermine
tramadol
viagra
xanax
6.15.2008 10:11am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
buy cialis
cheap tramadol
phentermine
buy xanax
buy viagra
6.15.2008 11:49am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.15.2008 11:51am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
phentermine
xanax
tramadol
cheap viagra
cialis
6.15.2008 11:52am
tramadol (mail) (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
viagra
buy xanax
tramadol
phentermine
buy cialis
6.15.2008 3:33pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.15.2008 4:56pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
cialis
xanax
phentermine
cheap tramadol
buy viagra
6.15.2008 5:46pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
cheap cialis
tramadol
buy phentermine
buy xanax
cheap viagra
6.15.2008 10:26pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
cheap cialis
buy tramadol
viagra
cheap xanax
cheap phentermine
6.15.2008 10:26pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.15.2008 10:27pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
viagra
cheap tramadol
phentermine
cialis
cheap xanax
6.15.2008 10:34pm
tramadol (www):
6.15.2008 11:29pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.15.2008 11:32pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
cheap cialis
xanax
phentermine
buy tramadol
viagra
6.15.2008 11:34pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
cheap viagra
buy xanax
tramadol
phentermine
cialis
6.15.2008 11:55pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.16.2008 3:19am
tramadol (www):
6.16.2008 3:47am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.16.2008 3:49am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.16.2008 11:07am
tramadol (mail) (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
buy cialis
cheap tramadol
viagra
buy xanax
phentermine
6.16.2008 12:56pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.16.2008 1:51pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
cheap viagra
xanax
cheap tramadol
phentermine
cialis
6.16.2008 1:51pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.16.2008 4:45pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great work,webmaster,nice design!
buy viagra
buy tramadol
xanax
cialis
phentermine
6.16.2008 9:41pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy viagra
buy tramadol
phentermine
cheap cialis
xanax
6.16.2008 11:15pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.17.2008 2:48am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.17.2008 6:44am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.17.2008 10:02am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.17.2008 2:57pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
xanax
xanax
cialis
viagra
tramadol
6.17.2008 2:57pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great site. Good info
tramadol
cialis
viagra
phentermine
6.17.2008 2:57pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great site. Keep doing.
xanax
xanax
cialis
viagra
tramadol
6.17.2008 8:08pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.17.2008 9:03pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
phentermine
xanax
tramadol
viagra
buy cialis
6.17.2008 11:24pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
tramadol
buy xanax
viagra
buy cialis
phentermine
6.18.2008 1:11am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.18.2008 4:00am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great work,webmaster,nice design!
buy phentermine
xanax
cheap tramadol
buy viagra
buy cialis
6.18.2008 4:55am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.18.2008 8:06am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.18.2008 11:53am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Perfect site, i like it!
xanax
cialis
xanax
tramadol
phentermine
6.18.2008 11:54am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy viagra
buy xanax
cheap tramadol
phentermine
cheap cialis
6.18.2008 4:11pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.18.2008 5:43pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
xanax
tramadol
cheap phentermine
buy viagra
cialis
6.18.2008 8:50pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great work,webmaster,nice design!
buy xanax
phentermine
buy viagra
cheap tramadol
cheap cialis
6.18.2008 9:09pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great site. Keep doing.
xanax
cialis
xanax
tramadol
phentermine
6.18.2008 9:26pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.18.2008 9:26pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.19.2008 2:35am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.19.2008 3:19am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.19.2008 5:47am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great work,webmaster,nice design!
buy viagra
buy tramadol
buy xanax
cialis
cheap phentermine
6.19.2008 5:47am
tramadol (mail) (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
xanax
phentermine
phentermine
tramadol
cialis
6.19.2008 8:00am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.19.2008 8:23am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.19.2008 8:24am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.19.2008 8:25am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.19.2008 1:17pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
tramadol
buy viagra
cheap xanax
buy cialis
phentermine
6.19.2008 4:59pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.19.2008 6:33pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
buy viagra
cheap cialis
xanax
tramadol
buy phentermine
6.19.2008 8:42pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
buy tramadol
cheap viagra
buy xanax
cheap cialis
phentermine
6.20.2008 12:15am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
phentermine
buy xanax
buy viagra
tramadol
cialis
6.20.2008 1:58am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.20.2008 5:59am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.20.2008 5:59am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
buy viagra
tramadol
cheap xanax
cheap cialis
cheap phentermine
6.20.2008 7:01am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.20.2008 7:15am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great site. Good info
phentermine
xanax
cialis
tramadol
6.20.2008 9:36am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great site. Keep doing.
tramadol
buy viagra
xanax
cialis
phentermine
6.20.2008 2:21pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great .Now i can say thank you!
xanax
cheap phentermine
viagra
cheap tramadol
buy cialis
6.20.2008 5:14pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
xanax
phentermine
phentermine
tramadol
cialis
6.20.2008 7:21pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.20.2008 9:18pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Incredible site!
phentermine
xanax
cialis
tramadol
6.21.2008 12:04am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.21.2008 12:21am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.21.2008 1:18am
tramadol (mail) (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
cheap viagra
cheap tramadol
xanax
cialis
phentermine
6.21.2008 4:01am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great site. Good info
xanax
xanax
cialis
viagra
tramadol
6.21.2008 4:54am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
phentermine
buy xanax
viagra
cheap tramadol
cheap cialis
6.21.2008 5:53am
tramadol (mail) (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
viagra
cheap xanax
buy tramadol
phentermine
cialis
6.21.2008 8:08am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.21.2008 10:42am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.21.2008 1:23pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Nice site! Thank you!
phentermine
xanax
cialis
tramadol
6.21.2008 2:33pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great work,webmaster,nice design!
phentermine
xanax
cialis
tramadol
6.21.2008 7:12pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
viagra
xanax
buy tramadol
buy phentermine
cheap cialis
6.21.2008 9:44pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.21.2008 11:25pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Perfect site, i like it!
xanax
phentermine
phentermine
tramadol
cialis
6.21.2008 11:55pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
xanax
xanax
cialis
viagra
tramadol
6.21.2008 11:55pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
cheap viagra
cialis
cheap xanax
tramadol
phentermine
6.22.2008 12:24am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
buy xanax
cheap tramadol
buy phentermine
viagra
cheap cialis
6.22.2008 3:18am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great site. Good info
xanax
xanax
cialis
viagra
tramadol
6.22.2008 9:24am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
cheap tramadol
buy viagra
xanax
cheap cialis
phentermine
6.22.2008 7:39pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
buy viagra
buy xanax
buy tramadol
phentermine
cheap cialis
6.23.2008 12:33am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great .Now i can say thank you!
tramadol
cheap xanax
buy viagra
cialis
phentermine
6.23.2008 1:24am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.23.2008 8:41am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
phentermine
xanax
cialis
tramadol
6.23.2008 2:18pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
xanax
phentermine
phentermine
tramadol
cialis
6.23.2008 2:19pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Perfect site, i like it!
xanax
cialis
xanax
tramadol
phentermine
6.23.2008 2:19pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.23.2008 3:56pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great work,webmaster,nice design!
viagra
cheap tramadol
xanax
cheap cialis
phentermine
6.23.2008 4:44pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great .Now i can say thank you!
tramadol
cialis
phentermine
cheap viagra
xanax
6.24.2008 7:49pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
phentermine
viagra
cialis
cheap xanax
cheap tramadol
6.27.2008 5:19pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
cheap viagra
cheap xanax
cheap cialis
phentermine
buy tramadol
6.27.2008 9:01pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.28.2008 4:52am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
cheap phentermine
viagra
tramadol
buy cialis
xanax
6.28.2008 7:27pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.28.2008 9:07pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.29.2008 3:37am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.29.2008 6:21am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.29.2008 10:32am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
phentermine
cheap viagra
buy cialis
cheap xanax
cheap tramadol
6.29.2008 12:26pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.29.2008 7:39pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great work,webmaster,nice design!
buy viagra
xanax
cialis
phentermine
tramadol
6.29.2008 9:12pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.30.2008 12:20am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.30.2008 5:36am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.30.2008 7:47am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.30.2008 7:47am
tramadol (mail) (www):
6.30.2008 2:12pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
phentermine
viagra
buy cialis
buy xanax
buy tramadol
6.30.2008 2:12pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
cheap viagra
buy phentermine
tramadol
cialis
buy xanax
6.30.2008 4:45pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
cheap phentermine
viagra
tramadol
cheap cialis
xanax
6.30.2008 4:46pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
cialis
buy xanax
cheap phentermine
viagra
tramadol
6.30.2008 4:46pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great .Now i can say thank you!
viagra
xanax
buy cialis
phentermine
cheap tramadol
6.30.2008 6:53pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
buy viagra
xanax
buy cialis
cheap phentermine
tramadol
6.30.2008 10:37pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.1.2008 2:30am
tramadol (mail) (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
phentermine
viagra
cheap cialis
cheap xanax
cheap tramadol
7.1.2008 2:30am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
tramadol
viagra
phentermine
cheap cialis
xanax
7.1.2008 4:27am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy tramadol
buy viagra
cialis
buy xanax
phentermine
7.1.2008 4:27am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.1.2008 4:27am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.1.2008 4:28am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.1.2008 8:29am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Perfect site, i like it!
cialis
xanax
phentermine
viagra
cheap tramadol
7.1.2008 8:30am
tramadol (mail) (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
buy cialis
buy phentermine
buy xanax
viagra
tramadol
7.1.2008 11:05am
tramadol (mail) (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
phentermine
viagra
cialis
cheap xanax
tramadol
7.1.2008 11:06am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.1.2008 1:37pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
buy viagra
phentermine
buy tramadol
cheap cialis
buy xanax
7.1.2008 6:01pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great work,webmaster,nice design!
cheap tramadol
cheap viagra
phentermine
cialis
xanax
7.1.2008 6:01pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.1.2008 6:25pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Perfect site, i like it!
viagra
xanax
cialis
phentermine
tramadol
7.1.2008 7:46pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.1.2008 10:47pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.1.2008 11:23pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.2.2008 1:46am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.2.2008 3:14am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.2.2008 3:17am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.2.2008 5:00am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy tramadol
viagra
phentermine
cheap cialis
xanax
7.2.2008 10:36am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.2.2008 12:11pm
tramadol (mail):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
phentermine
buy xanax
cheap cialis
buy tramadol
viagra
7.2.2008 3:26pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
cialis
buy xanax
cheap phentermine
cheap viagra
cheap tramadol
7.2.2008 4:10pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.2.2008 4:10pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.2.2008 5:14pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
buy xanax
phentermine
viagra
cialis
tramadol
7.2.2008 5:29pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
tramadol
buy cialis
cheap xanax
viagra
phentermine
7.2.2008 8:02pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
phentermine
cheap xanax
tramadol
cheap cialis
buy viagra
7.2.2008 8:04pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.2.2008 9:33pm
tramadol (mail):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
phentermine
xanax
cialis
tramadol
viagra
7.2.2008 11:09pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.2.2008 11:09pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
cialis
buy xanax
phentermine
viagra
tramadol
7.2.2008 11:42pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
buy tramadol
buy viagra
buy phentermine
cialis
buy xanax
7.2.2008 11:42pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.3.2008 1:55am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.3.2008 3:27am
tramadol (mail):
7.3.2008 7:17am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.3.2008 7:39am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
viagra
phentermine
tramadol
cialis
xanax
7.3.2008 7:40am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.3.2008 7:40am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.3.2008 1:08pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.3.2008 1:09pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
buy cialis
xanax
viagra
buy tramadol
phentermine
7.3.2008 2:06pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great work,webmaster,nice design!
xanax
buy cialis
cheap viagra
phentermine
tramadol
7.3.2008 4:45pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.3.2008 4:55pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
tramadol
xanax
cialis
viagra
phentermine
7.3.2008 4:55pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
tramadol
viagra
cheap cialis
buy xanax
phentermine
7.3.2008 4:56pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.3.2008 8:18pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.3.2008 9:22pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
viagra
cialis
buy tramadol
buy xanax
buy phentermine
7.3.2008 9:31pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.4.2008 1:14am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.4.2008 1:32am
tramadol (mail) (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
phentermine
buy xanax
buy tramadol
cialis
viagra
7.4.2008 5:23am
tramadol (mail) (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
cheap tramadol
viagra
buy phentermine
cialis
xanax
7.4.2008 5:31am
tramadol (mail) (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
viagra
phentermine
tramadol
cialis
buy xanax
7.4.2008 5:31am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great site. Good info
viagra
cialis
tramadol
phentermine
xanax
7.4.2008 9:13am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.4.2008 11:29am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.4.2008 4:28pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.4.2008 4:29pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great site. Keep doing.
phentermine
viagra
tramadol
xanax
buy cialis
7.4.2008 6:30pm
tramadol (mail):
7.4.2008 8:24pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.4.2008 10:14pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
viagra
cialis
xanax
phentermine
cheap tramadol
7.5.2008 12:16am
tramadol (mail) (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
tramadol
buy xanax
cialis
viagra
phentermine
7.5.2008 12:47am
tramadol (mail) (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
cheap phentermine
buy xanax
tramadol
cialis
buy viagra
7.5.2008 2:49am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
cialis
cheap xanax
viagra
tramadol
phentermine
7.5.2008 3:40am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.5.2008 5:34am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
xanax
buy phentermine
cheap viagra
cialis
cheap tramadol
7.5.2008 8:12am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.5.2008 8:45am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy xanax
buy cialis
viagra
cheap phentermine
tramadol
7.5.2008 8:45am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great work,webmaster,nice design!
cheap phentermine
cheap xanax
buy tramadol
cialis
buy viagra
7.5.2008 8:50am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.5.2008 9:33am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.5.2008 11:38am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.5.2008 12:51pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.5.2008 12:52pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
buy viagra
cheap cialis
tramadol
phentermine
xanax
7.5.2008 1:35pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.5.2008 1:46pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
cheap xanax
buy cialis
viagra
phentermine
tramadol
7.5.2008 1:46pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great .Now i can say thank you!
cheap viagra
cialis
tramadol
phentermine
buy xanax
7.5.2008 3:33pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.5.2008 4:11pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.5.2008 4:11pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.5.2008 4:38pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.5.2008 5:29pm
tramadol (mail):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
phentermine
xanax
cialis
cheap tramadol
viagra
7.5.2008 6:22pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
tramadol
buy xanax
cialis
cheap viagra
phentermine
7.5.2008 6:22pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
cheap tramadol
cheap xanax
cialis
cheap viagra
buy phentermine
7.5.2008 10:32pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
viagra
buy cialis
cheap xanax
cheap phentermine
cheap tramadol
7.5.2008 10:33pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.5.2008 10:58pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
phentermine
viagra
tramadol
cheap xanax
buy cialis
7.5.2008 10:58pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.6.2008 1:11am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
xanax
phentermine
viagra
cialis
tramadol
7.6.2008 3:51am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Nice site! Thank you!
cialis
tramadol
viagra
viagra
viagra
7.6.2008 4:54am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.6.2008 7:24am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
viagra
cialis
tramadol
buy phentermine
xanax
7.6.2008 7:49am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
buy viagra
cialis
xanax
cheap phentermine
tramadol
7.6.2008 8:16am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.6.2008 9:29am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
buy viagra
buy cialis
buy tramadol
cheap phentermine
buy xanax
7.6.2008 10:08am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great work,webmaster,nice design!
phentermine
buy xanax
tramadol
buy cialis
buy viagra
7.6.2008 10:30am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.6.2008 3:41pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great work,webmaster,nice design!
viagra
xanax
cialis
xanax
cialis
tramadol
7.6.2008 3:57pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
cheap viagra
cialis
tramadol
buy phentermine
xanax
7.6.2008 4:56pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great .Now i can say thank you!
phentermine
xanax
tramadol
cialis
buy viagra
7.6.2008 5:16pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.6.2008 5:25pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy viagra
cheap cialis
cheap tramadol
phentermine
xanax
7.6.2008 6:49pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great site. Keep doing.
viagra
xanax
cialis
xanax
cialis
tramadol
7.6.2008 6:50pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.6.2008 9:23pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.6.2008 9:54pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.6.2008 10:59pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.7.2008 12:21am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.7.2008 12:38am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.7.2008 12:58am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.7.2008 2:46am
tramadol (mail) (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
buy xanax
phentermine
viagra
cialis
cheap tramadol
7.7.2008 3:58am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
cheap phentermine
cheap viagra
cheap tramadol
xanax
cialis
7.7.2008 7:46am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
viagra
phentermine
xanax
cheap tramadol
buy cialis
7.7.2008 8:18am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.7.2008 8:57am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.7.2008 10:42am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
cialis
tramadol
viagra
viagra
viagra
7.7.2008 11:17am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
cheap viagra
tramadol
buy phentermine
cheap cialis
cheap xanax
7.7.2008 11:19am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.7.2008 1:42pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great work,webmaster,nice design!
cialis
tramadol
viagra
viagra
viagra
7.7.2008 3:05pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.7.2008 4:33pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.7.2008 4:33pm
tramadol (mail):
7.7.2008 4:56pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
cialis
tramadol
viagra
viagra
viagra
7.7.2008 6:41pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great .Now i can say thank you!
cialis
tramadol
viagra
viagra
viagra
7.7.2008 10:23pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
viagra
buy xanax
cialis
cheap phentermine
buy tramadol
7.7.2008 10:24pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
viagra
cialis
buy tramadol
cheap xanax
phentermine
7.7.2008 11:18pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.8.2008 12:21am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
xanax
buy phentermine
viagra
cialis
tramadol
7.8.2008 1:00am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
buy phentermine
buy viagra
buy tramadol
cheap xanax
buy cialis
7.8.2008 1:52am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.8.2008 6:00am
tramadol (mail) (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
cialis
tramadol
viagra
viagra
viagra
7.8.2008 6:09am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
cialis
tramadol
viagra
viagra
viagra
7.8.2008 12:00pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
buy phentermine
buy viagra
buy tramadol
xanax
cialis
7.8.2008 12:41pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great work,webmaster,nice design!
viagra
buy cialis
tramadol
xanax
cheap phentermine
7.8.2008 4:54pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great .Now i can say thank you!
tramadol
cialis
buy phentermine
viagra
buy xanax
7.8.2008 6:09pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.8.2008 6:22pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.8.2008 8:33pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
cheap xanax
buy phentermine
cheap viagra
cialis
buy tramadol
7.9.2008 12:44am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
viagra
cheap phentermine
cheap xanax
buy tramadol
buy cialis
7.9.2008 1:53am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Nice site! Thank you!
cialis
tramadol
viagra
viagra
viagra
7.9.2008 4:03am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
cialis
cheap xanax
viagra
tramadol
phentermine
7.9.2008 4:58am
tramadol (mail):
7.9.2008 11:18am
tramadol (mail) (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
viagra
xanax
cialis
xanax
cialis
tramadol
7.9.2008 12:13pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
cialis
tramadol
viagra
viagra
viagra
7.9.2008 2:02pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.9.2008 8:59pm
team method guitar (mail) (www):
cool
7.9.2008 11:29pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.10.2008 3:28am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.10.2008 3:28am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
buy cialis
cheap xanax
viagra
cheap tramadol
phentermine
7.10.2008 6:20am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
phentermine
xanax
cheap viagra
buy tramadol
cialis
7.10.2008 8:44am
tramadol (mail):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy viagra
cialis
cheap tramadol
buy phentermine
xanax
7.10.2008 10:35am
Pharm40 (mail) (www):
Very nice site!
cheap viagra
7.10.2008 3:18pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.10.2008 7:44pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy xanax
buy phentermine
viagra
cialis
cheap tramadol
7.10.2008 10:23pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
viagra
cheap xanax
cheap cialis
cheap phentermine
tramadol
7.11.2008 1:48am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.11.2008 1:48am
tramadol (mail):
7.11.2008 1:48am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.11.2008 6:47am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great .Now i can say thank you!
phentermine
cheap xanax
viagra
cheap tramadol
cialis
7.11.2008 8:41am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.11.2008 10:51am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.11.2008 10:52am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.11.2008 10:52am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.11.2008 11:16am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great .Now i can say thank you!
tramadol
viagra
phentermine
cheap cialis
buy xanax
7.11.2008 2:58pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
buy tramadol
cheap viagra
buy phentermine
buy cialis
xanax
7.11.2008 5:57pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
buy cialis
buy xanax
cheap viagra
phentermine
tramadol
7.11.2008 8:29pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.12.2008 12:28am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
cheap viagra
cheap cialis
buy tramadol
xanax
cheap phentermine
7.12.2008 1:04am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.12.2008 1:04am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
phentermine
buy xanax
viagra
buy tramadol
cialis
7.12.2008 7:57pm
tramadol (mail):
7.12.2008 8:11pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
cialis
xanax
cheap viagra
cheap tramadol
phentermine
7.12.2008 8:28pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great .Now i can say thank you!
buy cialis
xanax
viagra
cheap phentermine
tramadol
7.12.2008 8:28pm
tramadol (mail):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
cheap viagra
buy xanax
cialis
buy phentermine
buy tramadol
7.12.2008 9:50pm
tramadol (mail):
7.12.2008 11:28pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.13.2008 12:45am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
buy viagra
buy phentermine
buy cialis
buy tramadol
buy xanax
7.13.2008 1:26am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great work,webmaster,nice design!
viagra
cheap tramadol
phentermine
cheap xanax
cialis
7.13.2008 4:29am
tramadol (mail) (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
cheap xanax
cheap viagra
cialis
cheap phentermine
buy tramadol
7.13.2008 4:40am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.13.2008 5:21am
tramadol (mail) (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
cheap cialis
buy xanax
buy viagra
phentermine
tramadol
7.13.2008 5:21am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.13.2008 7:53am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.13.2008 7:53am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
cheap viagra
buy cialis
tramadol
xanax
cheap phentermine
7.13.2008 10:26am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy cialis
cheap xanax
viagra
buy tramadol
phentermine
7.13.2008 10:26am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
cialis
cheap xanax
viagra
phentermine
tramadol
7.13.2008 10:27am
tramadol (mail) (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
viagra
cheap tramadol
phentermine
buy xanax
cialis
7.13.2008 12:15pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.13.2008 12:59pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Perfect site, i like it!
viagra
tramadol
phentermine
buy xanax
cialis
7.13.2008 2:06pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.13.2008 3:23pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.13.2008 3:35pm
tramadol (mail):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
cheap viagra
buy xanax
cialis
buy phentermine
cheap tramadol
7.13.2008 3:56pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great work,webmaster,nice design!
buy viagra
tramadol
phentermine
buy xanax
cheap cialis
7.13.2008 3:56pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
phentermine
xanax
cheap viagra
buy tramadol
cheap cialis
7.13.2008 4:28pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.13.2008 5:23pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.13.2008 5:45pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
viagra
cialis
tramadol
cheap xanax
cheap phentermine
7.13.2008 7:56pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
cialis
cheap xanax
viagra
phentermine
tramadol
7.13.2008 7:56pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
viagra
cheap phentermine
cialis
buy tramadol
xanax
7.13.2008 10:48pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
buy tramadol
buy viagra
buy phentermine
buy cialis
xanax
7.13.2008 11:21pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.14.2008 12:41am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
viagra
phentermine
buy cialis
tramadol
buy xanax
7.14.2008 2:46am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.14.2008 3:09am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.14.2008 4:13am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great .Now i can say thank you!
viagra
cheap cialis
cheap tramadol
buy xanax
phentermine
7.14.2008 5:51am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
tramadol
cheap viagra
phentermine
buy cialis
buy xanax
7.14.2008 6:50am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
phentermine
xanax
buy viagra
tramadol
cheap cialis
7.14.2008 8:30am
tramadol (mail):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
cheap viagra
xanax
cialis
phentermine
buy tramadol
7.14.2008 9:26am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.14.2008 10:12am
tramadol (mail):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
cheap viagra
xanax
buy cialis
phentermine
tramadol
7.14.2008 12:41pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
viagra
tramadol
cheap phentermine
buy xanax
cialis
7.14.2008 12:41pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
viagra
cialis
tramadol
cheap xanax
buy phentermine
7.14.2008 4:46pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.14.2008 5:28pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
cheap tramadol
viagra
buy phentermine
cialis
buy xanax
7.14.2008 5:36pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.14.2008 5:49pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.14.2008 6:09pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.14.2008 6:17pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
cialis
viagra
phentermine
cheap xanax
tramadol
7.14.2008 7:17pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.14.2008 8:58pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.14.2008 9:37pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.14.2008 9:45pm
alprazolam (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
alprazolam
propecia
adipex
buy soma
alprazolam
buy alprazolam
propecia
buy adipex
soma
7.14.2008 10:34pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
cialis
viagra
cheap phentermine
xanax
buy tramadol
7.14.2008 10:46pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
viagra
cheap tramadol
cheap phentermine
xanax
cialis
7.14.2008 11:37pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great site. Keep doing.
viagra
tramadol
cialis
cheap phentermine
xanax
7.15.2008 12:02am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.15.2008 12:37am
tramadol (mail):
Great work,webmaster,nice design!
viagra
buy xanax
buy cialis
buy phentermine
tramadol
7.15.2008 1:28am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.15.2008 1:29am
didrex (mail) (www):
7.15.2008 1:41am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.15.2008 3:07am
prozac (mail) (www):
7.15.2008 4:43am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.15.2008 6:57am
soma (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
soma
soma
soma
buy soma
soma
alprazolam
buy propecia
buy adipex
soma
7.15.2008 7:32am
alprazolam (mail) (www):
7.15.2008 10:12am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great .Now i can say thank you!
viagra
tramadol
buy phentermine
xanax
buy cialis
7.15.2008 10:21am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.15.2008 11:55am
prozac (mail) (www):
7.15.2008 11:58am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
xanax
phentermine
tramadol
viagra
buy cialis
7.15.2008 12:13pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
tramadol
cheap viagra
buy cialis
xanax
phentermine
7.15.2008 1:43pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
buy viagra
buy phentermine
buy cialis
cheap tramadol
xanax
7.15.2008 2:09pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
buy viagra
tramadol
buy cialis
cheap phentermine
xanax
7.15.2008 5:34pm
prozac (mail) (www):
7.15.2008 5:46pm
soma (mail) (www):
7.15.2008 6:06pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.15.2008 7:09pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy viagra
tramadol
cialis
cheap phentermine
xanax
7.15.2008 7:11pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.15.2008 7:41pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.15.2008 8:23pm
alprazolam (mail) (www):
7.15.2008 8:32pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.15.2008 8:36pm
tramadol (mail):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
viagra
xanax
cialis
cheap phentermine
cheap tramadol
7.15.2008 9:28pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.15.2008 10:58pm
alprazolam (mail) (www):
7.15.2008 11:20pm
discount_viagra (mail) (www):
7.15.2008 11:34pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.16.2008 1:21am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.16.2008 3:50am
propecia (mail) (www):
7.16.2008 5:10am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.16.2008 5:23am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.16.2008 7:34am
soma (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
soma
soma
soma
buy soma
soma
alprazolam
buy propecia
adipex
buy soma
7.16.2008 7:57am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy cialis
cheap viagra
buy phentermine
xanax
cheap tramadol
7.16.2008 8:09am
tramadol (mail) (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
cheap xanax
cheap phentermine
tramadol
viagra
cheap cialis
7.16.2008 8:13am
didrex (mail) (www):
7.16.2008 9:05am
tramadol (mail):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
viagra
buy xanax
cialis
cheap phentermine
tramadol
7.16.2008 1:25pm
soma (mail) (www):
7.16.2008 1:29pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
tramadol
viagra
phentermine
xanax
buy cialis
7.16.2008 4:09pm
alprazolam (mail) (www):
7.16.2008 4:11pm
prozac (mail) (www):
7.16.2008 5:15pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
cheap viagra
cheap tramadol
cialis
cheap phentermine
xanax
7.16.2008 5:34pm
prozac (mail) (www):
7.16.2008 7:02pm
soma (mail) (www):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
propecia
buy adipex
soma
propecia
adipex
buy alprazolam
propecia
adipex
soma
7.16.2008 7:45pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
cialis
viagra
cheap phentermine
xanax
buy tramadol
7.16.2008 8:16pm
prozac:
7.16.2008 9:49pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great .Now i can say thank you!
cialis
cheap viagra
cheap phentermine
buy xanax
tramadol
7.16.2008 10:01pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
cheap viagra
tramadol
cheap phentermine
cheap xanax
cheap cialis
7.16.2008 11:34pm
tramadol (mail):
7.16.2008 11:34pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.17.2008 2:56am
tramadol (mail) (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
buy viagra
tramadol
cialis
phentermine
xanax
7.17.2008 3:15am
valium (mail) (www):
7.17.2008 4:27am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.17.2008 5:11am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
buy cialis
cheap viagra
phentermine
cheap xanax
cheap tramadol
7.17.2008 5:38am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.17.2008 7:14am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.17.2008 9:29am
discount_viagra (mail) (www):
7.17.2008 9:36am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
xanax
phentermine
buy tramadol
viagra
buy cialis
7.17.2008 9:40am
soma (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy soma
soma
soma
buy soma
soma
buy alprazolam
propecia
buy adipex
buy soma
7.17.2008 10:04am
tramadol (mail) (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
cheap viagra
phentermine
buy xanax
cialis
tramadol
7.17.2008 10:38am
prozac (mail) (www):
7.17.2008 10:40am
tramadol (mail) (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
viagra
buy tramadol
cialis
phentermine
xanax
7.17.2008 12:16pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy cialis
cheap viagra
cheap tramadol
cheap xanax
phentermine
7.17.2008 12:16pm
tramadol (mail):
Great .Now i can say thank you!
cheap viagra
xanax
cheap cialis
phentermine
tramadol
7.17.2008 12:52pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.17.2008 1:12pm
valium (mail) (www):
7.17.2008 1:55pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
cheap xanax
buy phentermine
buy tramadol
cheap viagra
buy cialis
7.17.2008 2:45pm
prozac:
7.17.2008 3:30pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.17.2008 3:30pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.17.2008 4:19pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.17.2008 5:03pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
cheap tramadol
buy viagra
cialis
xanax
cheap phentermine
7.17.2008 5:03pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.17.2008 5:16pm
prozac (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
ambien
ultram
hydrocodone
soma
prozac
buy ambien
ultram
hydrocodone
soma
prozac
7.17.2008 6:10pm
tramadol (mail):
7.17.2008 6:28pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
buy cialis
viagra
buy phentermine
cheap xanax
tramadol
7.17.2008 6:36pm
prozac (mail) (www):
7.17.2008 6:43pm
carisoprodol:
7.17.2008 6:57pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
buy tramadol
cheap viagra
phentermine
xanax
cheap cialis
7.17.2008 7:33pm
didrex (mail) (www):
7.17.2008 8:08pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.17.2008 8:21pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great work,webmaster,nice design!
viagra
tramadol
phentermine
cialis
xanax
7.17.2008 10:11pm
order_viagra (mail) (www):
7.17.2008 10:17pm
soma (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
buy ambien
ultram
hydrocodone
soma
prozac
ambien
buy ultram
hydrocodone
buy soma
prozac
7.17.2008 10:17pm
alprazolam (mail) (www):
7.17.2008 11:18pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.18.2008 12:16am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.18.2008 12:16am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
cheap cialis
viagra
tramadol
xanax
phentermine
7.18.2008 3:04am
alprazolam (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
alprazolam
propecia
buy adipex
soma
buy alprazolam
alprazolam
propecia
buy adipex
soma
7.18.2008 3:12am
tramadol (mail) (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
buy viagra
buy tramadol
buy phentermine
cialis
xanax
7.18.2008 3:47am
valium:
7.18.2008 5:19am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
buy cialis
buy viagra
cheap tramadol
xanax
phentermine
7.18.2008 7:02am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
viagra
buy tramadol
phentermine
cialis
xanax
7.18.2008 7:51am
tramadol (mail) (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
cialis
xanax
phentermine
viagra
buy tramadol
7.18.2008 9:44am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.18.2008 10:45am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
viagra
tramadol
phentermine
cialis
xanax
7.18.2008 12:47pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great work,webmaster,nice design!
cheap cialis
viagra
phentermine
xanax
tramadol
7.18.2008 6:26pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great work,webmaster,nice design!
viagra
buy tramadol
buy cialis
phentermine
xanax
7.18.2008 7:27pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
buy cialis
buy xanax
buy phentermine
buy viagra
tramadol
7.18.2008 8:00pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.18.2008 10:01pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
viagra
buy tramadol
phentermine
cialis
buy xanax
7.19.2008 1:30am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
buy tramadol
viagra
cialis
xanax
cheap phentermine
7.19.2008 2:36am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
buy tramadol
cheap viagra
phentermine
xanax
cialis
7.19.2008 2:36am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Perfect site, i like it!
tramadol
cialis
buy xanax
viagra
phentermine
7.19.2008 4:17am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
cialis
buy xanax
phentermine
viagra
tramadol
7.19.2008 7:00am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.19.2008 8:20am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.19.2008 8:20am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.19.2008 8:51am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.19.2008 9:53am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.19.2008 12:46pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.19.2008 2:01pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great work,webmaster,nice design!
buy phentermine
viagra
xanax
buy cialis
tramadol
7.19.2008 3:42pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
tramadol
cheap viagra
cheap phentermine
cheap xanax
cialis
7.19.2008 4:27pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.19.2008 5:27pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
viagra
buy tramadol
buy cialis
cheap phentermine
xanax
7.19.2008 5:42pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
buy cialis
cheap viagra
cheap tramadol
buy xanax
phentermine
7.19.2008 5:42pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.19.2008 7:36pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
tramadol
cialis
buy xanax
viagra
phentermine
7.19.2008 7:36pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great site. Keep doing.
buy phentermine
viagra
tramadol
cialis
xanax
7.19.2008 11:25pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
buy xanax
viagra
phentermine
buy cialis
tramadol
7.20.2008 3:16pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.20.2008 7:06pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great .Now i can say thank you!
phentermine
viagra
tramadol
cialis
xanax
7.20.2008 10:11pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.20.2008 10:39pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
tramadol
viagra
cialis
xanax
buy phentermine
7.21.2008 12:32am
tramadol (mail) (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
phentermine
tramadol
cialis
xanax
buy viagra
7.21.2008 1:07am
tramadol (mail):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
viagra
buy cialis
xanax
phentermine
tramadol
7.21.2008 1:07am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
tramadol
buy phentermine
viagra
cialis
xanax
7.21.2008 2:44am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.21.2008 4:36am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
phentermine
tramadol
cialis
xanax
viagra
7.21.2008 5:27am
discount_viagra (mail) (www):
7.21.2008 5:55am
prozac (mail) (www):
7.21.2008 5:56am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
cialis
buy xanax
phentermine
viagra
tramadol
7.21.2008 6:35am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.21.2008 6:51am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.21.2008 7:11am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great .Now i can say thank you!
phentermine
viagra
tramadol
cialis
xanax
7.21.2008 7:33am
soma:
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
carisoprodol
valium
ambien
buy soma
buy adipex
alprazolam
prozac
buy hydrocodone
7.21.2008 8:45am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.21.2008 11:31am
tramadol (mail) (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
buy tramadol
phentermine
viagra
cialis
xanax
7.21.2008 2:07pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
tramadol
buy viagra
cialis
xanax
phentermine
7.21.2008 2:07pm
prozac:
7.21.2008 3:55pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great .Now i can say thank you!
phentermine
viagra
tramadol
cialis
buy xanax
7.21.2008 5:27pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.21.2008 5:34pm
cialis_online (mail) (www):
7.21.2008 7:11pm
soma (mail) (www):
7.21.2008 7:11pm
valium:
I want to say - thank you for this!
valium
ambien
soma
adipex
alprazolam
buy alprazolam
prozac
hydrocodone
7.21.2008 7:53pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
viagra
buy tramadol
phentermine
buy cialis
xanax
7.21.2008 8:03pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.21.2008 9:33pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.21.2008 9:39pm
tramadol (mail):
Great work,webmaster,nice design!
viagra
cialis
xanax
phentermine
tramadol
7.21.2008 9:43pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great work,webmaster,nice design!
viagra
tramadol
phentermine
buy cialis
xanax
7.21.2008 9:51pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great .Now i can say thank you!
tramadol
buy viagra
cialis
xanax
phentermine
7.21.2008 11:43pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great site. Keep doing.
phentermine
viagra
xanax
buy cialis
tramadol
7.21.2008 11:43pm
alprazolam:
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
adipex
alprazolam
prozac
hydrocodone
adipex
alprazolam
prozac
hydrocodone
7.22.2008 12:05am
order_viagra (mail) (www):
7.22.2008 12:12am
prozac (mail) (www):
7.22.2008 12:12am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.22.2008 1:48am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy tramadol
phentermine
viagra
buy cialis
buy xanax
7.22.2008 1:49am
tramadol (mail) (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
xanax
tramadol
phentermine
viagra
buy cialis
7.22.2008 1:54am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy viagra
tramadol
phentermine
cialis
xanax
7.22.2008 3:45am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Perfect site, i like it!
phentermine
viagra
tramadol
cialis
buy xanax
7.22.2008 4:00am
tramadol (mail) (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
buy cialis
xanax
phentermine
viagra
tramadol
7.22.2008 6:54am
soma (mail) (www):
Great work,webmaster,nice design!
buy soma
valium
hydrocodone
soma
buy valium
hydrocodone
7.22.2008 6:57am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
cialis
xanax
buy tramadol
buy phentermine
viagra
7.22.2008 8:47am
tramadol (mail) (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
viagra
tramadol
phentermine
xanax
cialis
7.22.2008 8:48am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great work,webmaster,nice design!
xanax
buy tramadol
phentermine
viagra
cialis
7.22.2008 8:48am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great site. Good info
phentermine
viagra
xanax
cialis
tramadol
7.22.2008 8:48am
tramadol (mail) (www):
I want to say - thank you for this!
cialis
xanax
phentermine
buy viagra
tramadol
7.22.2008 2:14pm
order_viagra (mail) (www):
7.22.2008 2:46pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
tramadol
viagra
cialis
buy xanax
phentermine
7.22.2008 3:57pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.22.2008 3:57pm
generic_viagra (mail) (www):
7.22.2008 4:57pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
buy cialis
xanax
tramadol
buy phentermine
viagra
7.22.2008 6:17pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great .Now i can say thank you!
phentermine
viagra
xanax
buy cialis
tramadol
7.22.2008 6:18pm
valium (mail) (www):
7.22.2008 8:55pm
tramadol (mail):
7.22.2008 8:58pm
cheap_viagra (mail) (www):
7.22.2008 9:10pm
prozac (mail) (www):
7.22.2008 10:55pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
phentermine
buy viagra
buy tramadol
cialis
xanax
7.23.2008 12:55am
valium (mail) (www):
7.23.2008 1:02am
tramadol (mail) (www):
Perfect site, i like it!
tramadol
viagra
buy cialis
xanax
phentermine
7.23.2008 3:12am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.23.2008 3:12am
tramadol (mail) (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
tramadol
phentermine
buy viagra
cialis
xanax
7.23.2008 5:34am
alprazolam (mail) (www):
7.23.2008 7:02am
cialis_billig (mail) (www):
7.23.2008 7:16am
soma (mail) (www):
7.23.2008 7:37am
soma (mail) (www):
Great .Now i can say thank you!
prozac
didrex
soma
valium
hydrocodone
buy hydrocodone
7.23.2008 9:33am
tramadol (mail) (www):
It is the coolest site,keep so!
tramadol
viagra
cialis
buy xanax
phentermine
7.23.2008 10:29am
generic_viagra (mail) (www):
7.23.2008 10:51am
valium (mail) (www):
7.23.2008 11:59am
tramadol (mail) (www):
7.23.2008 12:58pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
phentermine
viagra
xanax
cialis
buy tramadol
7.23.2008 12:58pm
tramadol (mail) (www):
Great work,webmaster,nice design!
tramadol
phentermine
viagra
cialis
xanax
7.23.2008 3:19pm
discount_cialis (mail) (www):
Perfect work!
discount cialis