pageok
pageok
pageok
The Washington Post's Weak Case That Gonzales Lied About Patriot Act Violations:
The front page of yesterday's Washington Post had a story by John Solomon suggesting that Alberto Gonzales may have lied to Congress about the Patriot Act in 2005. Although the story received a lot of play on the Hill and in the blogs yesterday, on closer inspection I think this story is seriously weak if not outright misleading. Here's the intro of the story:
As he sought to renew the USA Patriot Act two years ago, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales assured lawmakers that the FBI had not abused its potent new terrorism-fighting powers. "There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse," Gonzales told senators on April 27, 2005.

Six days earlier, the FBI sent Gonzales a copy of a report that said its agents had obtained personal information that they were not entitled to have. It was one of at least half a dozen reports of legal or procedural violations that Gonzales received in the three months before he made his statement to the Senate intelligence committee, according to internal FBI documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.
  I have already called for Alberto Gonzales to resign, and I still think he should resign, so I'm not one to go out of my way to defend Gonzales. But these criticisms strike me as really quite weak, and that they rest on some questionable connecting of dots by Post reporter John Solomon.

  First, some context. Gonzales's statement was made in the context of the sunsetting provisions of the Patriot Act. Congress had imposed sunset provisions on parts of the Patriot Act in 2001, and Gonzales was arguing that sunsetted provisions weren't necessary. Here's what he said:
Finally, I'd like to close by addressing a common question that must be answered by this Congress: the issue of whether we should continue to impose sunset provisions on critical sections of the PATRIOT Act.

The PATRIOT Act was a swift and decisive response to the attacks of September 11. In the weeks and months following the attacks in Washington, Pennsylvania, and New York, Democrats and Republicans came together to address the vulnerabilities in our nation's defenses. Both Congress and the Administration worked with experienced law enforcement, intelligence, and national security personnel to design legislation to better protect the American people. Although there was extensive consideration in 2001, and although it is unusual to impose sunsets on statutory investigative tools, Congress included sunsets on certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act because members wanted to ensure that we were not risking the very liberties we were setting out to defend.

Today, we can all be proud. The track record established over the past three years has demonstrated the effectiveness of the safeguards of civil liberties put in place when the Act was passed. There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse.
    Did Gonzales have reason to believe that his claim was false? I'm not so sure. The Washington Post story discusses a handful of reports that were sent to Gonzales's office about findings of rules and laws that were broken in investigations relating to terrorism. But as I read the examples, I can't find any that clearly is a "civil liberties abuse" involving the Patriot Act. And given that, I'm not sure we have any reason to conclude that Gonzales was intentionally misleading Congress.

   According to the reports, which were obtained pursuant to a FOIA request by FOIA whiz Marcia Hofmann of EFF, investigators at some point conducted a physical search without consent, and once improperly continued a FISA warrant passed its deadline. In another case, an ISP goofed and gave the government more than it asked for under a proper national security letter (the government sealed up the package after they realized what had happened). Finally, in one case someone made a typo and asked for the wrong phone number in a national security letter, apparently obtaining the wrong set of phone logs.

  Among these claims, the first two don't seem to connect at all to the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act amended a set of preexisting laws, and the first two seem to involve laws not even amended by the Act. The latter two examples at least are in the ballpark: while the national security letter authority was created in 1986, it was at least amended by the Patriot Act, so it's at least possible to connect the authority to the Patriot Act. But it doesn't sound like the violations mentioned are directly Patriot-Act-related: typos happen even outside the Patriot Act, and inaccurate compliance with court orders by ISPs is a longstanding issue that well predates the Patriot Act.

  And even if you conclude that these violations involve the Patriot Act, are they really "civil liberties abuses"? The word "abuse" suggests something flagrant, either something intentional or at least really very reckless. In contrast, the reports that Gonzales's office received seem to involve the kind of occasional accidents that regrettably can occur; it's not obvious to me that they are abuses. I don't want to minimize the nature of the violations. Violations are always bad, and deserve a response. But the issue here is Gonzales's truthfulness, and I don't see how these reports are evidence that Gonzales was lying.

  In sum, I think Solomon's report is based on a few logical leaps, both about the Patriot Act and the meaning of Gonzales's statement. And let me repeat myself: I'm no fan of Gonzales. I think he should resign as AG. But the question here is whether Gonzales lied about the Patriot Act, and it seems like a pretty serious stretch to suggest that he did.

  But wait, there's more. I was also very puzzled by today's follow-up story, also in the Washington Post and also written by John Solomon. It seems that DOJ set up a phone call for the press with two DOJ officials, OIPR head James Baker and Ass't AG Ken Wainstein, to make the case that the Post story was misleading. Each defended Gonzales' remark on grounds a lot like the one I have made out above. But instead of featuring that as the key point, Solomon instead came up with what seems like a very strained interpretation of different remarks that Baker & Wainstein also each said.

  Baker & Wainstein apparently each stated that they had discussed the topic of civil liberties violations with Gonzales in the past. No details were given; the points were made very generally. Here's Baker: "I have discussed and informed attorneys general, including this one, about mistakes the FBI has made or problems or violations or compliance incidents, however you want to refer to them." Here's Wainstein: ""I've discussed a number of times oversight concerns and, underlying those oversight concerns, the potential for violations. And I'm sure we've discussed violations that have occurred in the past."

  How did John Solomon report that? Here's the title and first two paragraphs of Solomon's follow-up story today:
Gonzales Knew About Violations, Officials Say
By John Solomon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 11, 2007; Page A03

Two senior Justice Department officials said yesterday that they kept Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales apprised of FBI violations of civil liberties and privacy safeguards in recent years.

The two officials spoke in a telephone call arranged by press officials at the Justice Department after The Washington Post disclosed yesterday that the FBI sent reports to Gonzales of legal and procedural violations shortly before he told senators in April 2005: "There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse" after 2001.
  Now, I don't know if Solomon had any control over the title, but both the title and the lead paragraph seem pretty misleading to me. As far as I can tell, nothing in the article suggests that Gonzales actually knew of the violations relevant to the story, as opposed to other violations at other times. However, the title and paragraph certainly seem designed to make it seem like Baker & Wainstein had admitted to informing Gonzales directly of those reports.

  Maybe I'm missing something, and if so I would be happy to post a correction. But based on what I can tell so far, I just don't think that Solomon's story holds up.
Steve2:
Out of curiosity, after Gonzales told the senators, "There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse", did any of them ask whether (and if so, how many) there had been reported but unverified cases of civil liberties abuses? I mean, it seems to me like an obvious thing to ask, and I'm thinking a lot probably hinges on what constitutes a "verified" case.

Oh, and Professor Kerr: my experience writing for a college newspaper was that a member of the editorial staff, not the article's author, picks the headline.
7.11.2007 4:01pm
Crust (mail):
some questionable connecting of dots by Post reporter John Solomon
That would not come as a surprise given Solomon's sad history as a reporter (I'm tempted to write "reporter" with scare quotes).
7.11.2007 4:05pm
Steve:
I think Prof. Kerr's defense of Gonzales is pretty solid.

John Solomon has a pretty well-established track record as a muckracking hack; the reaction to this story around the liberal blogosphere was basically "Wow, Solomon went after the other guys for once." But it sounds like they were mistaken to assume that his writing might be any less hackish in this case than it has been in the past.
7.11.2007 4:09pm
Ramza:
So your defense of Gonzales is that Congress should have asked 2 questions after Alberto made this comment.

*"There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse"

1)What about unverified cases of civil liberties abuse (if you can't answer now please investigate and give this info by Date X)

2)What about legal or procedural violations? How often do these occur, how serious, etc?

------------------------

Orin to the common man the differences between the two look like you are splitting hairs trying to spin. When Gonzales made the comment, congress trusted him to be forthright, honest, and ethical, in reality he was a calculating and manipulating.

He may not lied per say, but he was definitely was misleading and not being forthright. This is a serious matter, and the logic you used doesn't wash the AG's actions away.

------------

Of course like you said though it ultimately doesn't matter me and you agree that AG should resign.
7.11.2007 4:16pm
Crust (mail):
As Steve says, at least this shows that Solomon is a bipartisan bamboozler. Or is it better to be a partisan bamboozler which at least suggests there is something you care about other than getting attention?
7.11.2007 4:17pm
Crust (mail):
Tim F. at Balloon Juice cites this as a possible fourth time Gonzales has lied to Congress. I think Orin makes an excellent case that Gonzales is in the clear this time. Anyone have a view on the previous three times? From Tim F.:
For what it's worth, Solomon's zinger -- the Attorney General lied to Congress! -- has already been scooped (turns out that he did approve illegal wiretapping as WH counsel). Twice (all USA appointees would be Senate confirmed. sike!). No, three times (WH was not involved in USA firing decisions). The great rightwing moralists who lapsed into seizures every time Drudge implied that the Clintons misused their Christmas card list still don't care.
7.11.2007 4:27pm
OrinKerr:
Ramza,

I supose the most honest answer would have been something like this:
Senators, let's be honest: Neither you nor I really understand particularly well what's in the Patriot Act. But as far as I can tell, there have actually been fewer of the usual careless errors and minor screw-ups post 9/11 than we had before 9/11. And we haven't uncovered any intentional violations at all. That's not too surprising; the Patriot Act didn't change the law very much, contrary to what all the reporters think. But as far as I know, your concerns about civil liberties abuses have not been borne out.
It would have been really interesting if Gonzales had said that, actually.
7.11.2007 4:31pm
Crust (mail):
Back on May 3, Dale Carpenter wrote:
[A]s a prudential matter I am reluctant to say at this point that Congress should begin impeachment proceedings, even if it has the right to do so. For better or worse, impeachment is the nuclear option in American politics. Only one other executive cabinet member has ever been impeached. No attorney general has ever been impeached; when they get in bad trouble, they tend to resign, which Gonzales may yet do. Impeachment proceedings against an AG would be a time-consuming and absorbing national drama which, however constitutionally warranted, may still be avoided through resignation. Impeachment proceedings would increase the political pressure on Gonzales to resign, but they might also cause the administration and its supporters in Congress to dig in their heels against a "partisan" Democratic Congress.
Is it yet time for impeachment proceedings? As Dale wrote, that might -- or might not -- prompt Gonzales' resignation. But by now it is surely clear that nothing short of impeachment proceedings (barring new revelations of course) is going to prompt Gonzales to go. So the only alternative is living with Gonzales.
7.11.2007 4:43pm
Steve:
It would have been really interesting if Gonzales had said that, actually.

But the Patriot Act is used as a political issue by both sides. You can't have Bush saying one day that Democrats are endangering the country by holding up the Patriot Act, and Gonzales testifying the next day that the Patriot Act actually wasn't that big a deal.

Anyway, I get that you're the #1 debunker of myths about the Patriot Act, but the difference in the NSL regimes before and after the Patriot Act is actually pretty substantial.
7.11.2007 4:54pm
Garth:
"Senators, let's be honest: Neither you nor I really understand particularly well what's in the Patriot Act."

paraphrased.

Senators, you don't understand the Patriot Act, you only signed it into law... i don't understand the Patriot Act, i'm only required to enforce the law... and, sure, i know for a fact that there have been 'violations', but not INTENTIONAL violations... trust me... nudge, nudge, wink, wink...

and the man who doesn't know what's in the Patriot Act knows this HOW. Reports on his desk detailing, let's face it, civil liberty violations... he knew what he was being asked and he LIED to congress...
7.11.2007 5:23pm
Eli Rabett (www):
The nice collision would be between impeachment proceedings in the House and the game of keep away that the President is playing.
7.11.2007 5:27pm
Garth:
As he sought to renew the USA Patriot Act two years ago, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales assured lawmakers that the FBI had not abused its potent new terrorism-fighting powers. "There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse," Gonzales told senators on April 27, 2005.

And now, the truth:

Six days earlier, the FBI sent Gonzales a copy of a report that said its agents had obtained personal information that they were not entitled to have. It was one of at least half a dozen reports of legal or procedural violations that Gonzales received in the three months before he made his statement to the Senate intelligence committee, according to internal FBI documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.

The acts recounted in the FBI reports included unauthorized surveillance, an illegal property search and a case in which an Internet firm improperly turned over a compact disc with data that the FBI was not entitled to collect, the documents show. Gonzales was copied on each report that said administrative rules or laws protecting civil liberties and privacy had been violated.

The reports also alerted Gonzales in 2005 to problems with the FBI's use of an anti-terrorism tool known as a national security letter (NSL), well before the Justice Department's inspector general brought widespread abuse of the letters in 2004 and 2005 to light in a stinging report this past March.
7.11.2007 5:33pm
Garth:
The excuse that perhaps Gonzales had not yet read those reports when he testified is absolutely absurd. Even if it's true, once he did read those reports he would have the responsibility to inform Congress that what he told them was false. That is, that's what an ethical person who cares about the truth would have a responsibility to do; someone intentionally trying to deceive Congress and the American people would feel no such responsibility at all.

The second excuse, that "many" of those FBI violations were mere violations of "procedural safeguards" is even more absurd. The whole point of such safeguards is to prevent abuses. The fact that the administration has consistently sought to do away with those safeguards is precisely the issue when determining whether to renew the act that lowered them. Those reports detailed a wide variety of abuses, not mere "typographical errors", and the DOJ's own reports later slammed the FBI for its profligate and unprincipled use of National Security Letters.

Just another lie from Gonzales.
7.11.2007 5:35pm
Garth:
Recall this took place during Congressional deliberation over whether or not to review all, some or none of the Patriot Act.
7.11.2007 5:38pm
whackjobbbb:
Sorry, but this all comes off to we the apolitical un-lawschooled as just more political squabbling. I believe we needed a real political debate over this, to resolve technical issues relating to the FBI's investigative role, but instead we get "The Patriot Act" as political fodder, with incumbent politicians avoiding the real issues and jostling for political advantage, and a bunch of "reporters" covering the show with their brand of skewed nonsense.

Good on ya', Kerr. Beat down the closest snake, then move on to beating on the next one, wherever it lies.
7.11.2007 5:40pm
OrinKerr:
Garth,

Perhaps you could respond to the arguments in the post I wrote? I realize that using all caps is quite powerful, but I actually did make an argument in my post.
7.11.2007 5:43pm
Q the Enchanter (mail) (www):
Orin, sorry if this question is duplicative of those put to you in previous rounds, but do you think that Gonzales -- if he refuses to resign and the administration refuses to fire him -- should be impeached?
7.11.2007 5:55pm
OrinKerr:
Q,

No, I don't. I think he should resign, but I don't think Congress should impeach and remove him.
7.11.2007 6:09pm
Kelvin McCabe:
I agree with both Garth and Orin. Orin is right that for the most part, the reporter hyped up a story from rather thin material. A few procedureal errors here and there, whatever. The FBI makes mistakes everyday.

On the other hand, the systemic abuse of the National Security Letter's is something serious to civil liberties. I dont need to explain to those here why NSL's are potentially so dangerous. And to hear reports about possibly THOUSANDS of improper NSL's in 2004 and 2005 leads me to conclude that Alberto Gonzalez, who was aware of the high number of NSL's (or if not was completely deficient in his duties) was merely saying what the Dear Leader wanted him to say and what Congress wanted/needed to hear to renew certain provisions of the unPatriot Act.

Question: When these Patriot Act renewals came up for vote, was this at the same time when (some random staffer) slipped in that amendment to the Patriot Act that let the AG appoint interim US attorney's without senate approval? The amendment that nobody remembers reading (like the initial patriot act) or voting on but which is so widely popular now?
7.11.2007 6:13pm
Crust (mail):
OrinKerr:

I think [Gonzales] should resign, but I don't think Congress should impeach and remove him.

I think pretty much everyone agrees that Gonzales should resign. And that he won't (barring major new developments). May I ask why you oppose impeachment? Or do you think he might still resign without the threat of impeachment?
7.11.2007 6:50pm
Garth:
we don't know the extent of the "procedural errors" which is why Congress is considering investigating.

we don't know if there are more reports and we dont' know much of the detail in those reports that have been made available. we do know he also neglected to mention the NSL problems.

if you begin with the presumption that he was there to fully inform congress, he would not have glossed these matters over. for him to rely on further parsing and suggestions that Congress didn't ask the "right" question to unlock the box is disheartening.

gonzales needs to go for so many different reasons, i can see why some would be inclined to view this incident as part and parcel of an untrustworthy AG and not a stand alone reason for his removal.

his repeated evasions to congress have shredded his credibility, but i concede, it may turn out his statements in this case were warranted in light of what he knew, but no one will argue he was full and forthcoming.

if the President wants to keep an AG with zero credibility, he better be prepared for congress to investigate every suspicous thing he does.
7.11.2007 6:55pm
Anonymous Liberal (mail) (www):
As has been pointed out by others, John Solomon's M.O. is taking innocent behavior and spinning it in a way that makes it sound deeply scandalous. The only thing unusual about this story is that he targetted a Republican instead of a Democrat. At least it wasn't another 1300 word report on John Edwards' hair.

And lest there be any doubt that Gonzales is a liar, here's what he had to say on December 14, 2005, just two days before the NY Times revealed the existence of the NSA warrantless surveillance program:

You mention wiretaps. All wiretaps must be authorized by a federal judge. In addition, investigators must show probable cause and comply with other requirements before the court may authorize the wiretap. This has always been the case, and the PATRIOT Act did nothing to diminish these safeguards.
7.11.2007 7:17pm
Kurt Opsahl (mail) (www):
Orin, I appreciate your thoughtful commentary on Mr. Solomon's article, but question the way you define "abuse." You wrote:


The word "abuse" suggests something flagrant, either something intentional or at least really very reckless. In contrast, the reports that Gonzales's office received seem to involve the kind of occasional accidents that regrettably can occur; it's not obvious to me that they are abuses.


For what it is worth, "abuse" is defined as follows by the dictionaries I've consulted:


Random House Unabridged Dictionary -- "wrong or improper use; misuse:"
American Heritage -- "improper use or handling; misuse"
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law -- "improper, unfair, or excessive use"
Merriam-Webster's -- "improper or excessive use or treatment: MISUSE"


Sources: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abuse and http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abuse (NOTE: the DOJ specifically "cited the definition of 'abuse' . . . in Webster's," per the WP report).

With all due respect, can you point us to a source that includes "flagrant," "intentional" or "reckless" in the definition of "abuse"?

Note that all these definitions include "improper," and many of the reports sent to the AG specifically discuss the "improper" collection of information. Moreover, in a later (Jan 06) public statement, the AG specifically cited to "the Justice Department's own binding procedures and policies," right before mentioning the alleged lack of abuse:

When you look at the Act, you can see that there is extensive judicial and congressional oversight of the tools provided by the Act - not to mention the rigorous protections provided by the Justice Department's own binding procedures and policies. Over the past year, the Act has been the subject of more oversight and debate than any bill in recent memory - and all of the hearings, testimony, briefings, and meetings demonstrated that there has not been a single verified abuse of any of the provisions.


Yet, at a minimum, the reports in the FOIA response show "investigative activity which the FBI has determined was conducted contrary to the attorney general's guidelines for FBI National Security Investigations and Foreign Intelligence Collection and/or laws, executive orders and presidential directives." It is, at best, disingenuous to laud the protections of binding procedures and policies when you know that there are uses of NSLs contrary to those very procedures.

More importantly, the Attorney General's goal in his testimony was to broadly reassure ordinary Americans and Congress so that the Patriot Act provisions would be reauthorized by Congress. And it worked. He certainly gave no indication that his testimony was only intended to address "flagrant" problems -- that would have been easy enough to do. To the contrary, he wanted us to think that there were none. Now that the truth is coming out, and it's clear that there were significant problems and Gonzales knew about them, isn't it a little strange to be splitting hairs about the definition of "abuse" rather than discussing why the AG didn't talk straight to the American people and Congress in his testimony?
7.11.2007 7:23pm
OrinKerr:
Thanks for responding, Kurt. I think it's the pairing with "civil liberties" that's the key here. The fact that some kind of technical rule was violated doesn't mean that there was a "civil liberties abuse". I don't know what is disengenuous about that; can you explain a bit more?

If you want to make a broader point about the impression Gonzales was trying to make, though, I think Gonzales was being accurate based on what he knew. First, he was talking about the Patriot Act, not governmental investigations more generally. Second, in every organization consisting of thousands of people, there will always be some number of typos, omissions, and low-level accidental screw-ups somewhere. They happen in the FBI; they happen in the Senate; they happen in the private sector. I don't think Gonzales's statement was widely interpreted to mean that he had found away to eliminate all human error.
7.11.2007 8:05pm
Ramza:
I want to thank Garth for this comment

if you begin with the presumption that he was there to fully inform congress, he would not have glossed these matters over. for him to rely on further parsing and suggestions that Congress didn't ask the "right" question to unlock the box is disheartening.

and Kurt Opsahl for the entire post he made. They made the point I was trying to make so much better than I did, I am glad someone did.

Yes John Solomon is spinning and exaggerating what the AG did, yet at the same time the non-exaggerated true occurrence of events is enough to create "serious eyebrows", it is enough to remove all trust on congress behalf of the AG, it is enough that the president should fire/force the AG to resign, and it is enough to have members of Congress privatively consider the option of impeaching the AG (note I didn't say the should do so, they should though consider the option.)
7.11.2007 9:22pm
NickM (mail) (www):
If he has a very cramped view of Fourth Amendment rights, wouldn't he think that what many people are calling abuse of NSLs really isn't abuse, but proper use?

Nick
7.12.2007 5:10am
ATRGeek:
Orin argued:

"According to the reports, which were obtained pursuant to a FOIA request by FOIA whiz Marcia Hofmann of EFF, investigators at some point conducted a physical search without consent, and once improperly continued a FISA warrant passed its deadline.
...
Among these claims, the first two don't seem to connect at all to the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act amended a set of preexisting laws, and the first two seem to involve laws not even amended by the Act."

I am completely puzzled by this argument with respect to the second issue. FISA was among the laws amended by the PATRIOT Act, a fact frequently noted in rebuttal to those who claim that FISA was never updated to deal with terrorism. More specifically, Section 207 of the PATRIOT Act extended the duration for FISA warrants, and that was one of the Sections scheduled to sunset. So it seems to me Orin is simply wrong about the relevance of that issue.
7.12.2007 9:28am
Crust (mail):
Anonymous Liberal, your example shows an unequivocal lie on an important matter by Gonzales. But it was in a Washington Post online chat, so not under oath or before Congress. It's an admittedly low bar, but to me the more interesting question is whether Gonzales unequivocally lied to Congress.

By the way, President Bush told a similar lie on April 20, 2004, just weeks after the Gonzales-Comey-Ashcroft confrontation about warrantless surveillance (emphasis added):
Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.
7.12.2007 10:46am
Christopher Cooke (mail):
I think Orin is right, that the WaPost story exaggerated the significance of the information provided to Gonzo. But, this is another instance in which Gonzo carefully parsed the truth, to create an impression that may have been misleading to Congress. He should have said "There have been some procedural screw-ups, as there were before the Patriot Act was passed, but no verified reports of intentional abuses of civil liberties." He didn't say that, because he didn't want Congress to know about any screw-ups.
7.12.2007 11:56am
Crust (mail):
ATRGeek makes a great point. That investigators "once improperly continued a FISA warrant [past] its deadline" would indeed seem to bear out Solomon's thesis in this instance since the Patriot Act amended FISA deadlines. Is there any reason to think this violation was inadvertent? Since in other instances, we're told violations were a result of typos, etc. my (very) soft presumption is this was deliberate.
7.12.2007 1:23pm
spongeworthy (mail):
I guess the case many of you are making is that Gonzales should have come back to Congress and made sure they were aware that sometimes there are typos and procedural errors.
7.12.2007 2:49pm
markm (mail):
Orin to the common man the differences between the two look like you are splitting hairs trying to spin. When Gonzales made the comment, congress trusted him to be forthright, honest, and ethical, in reality he was a calculating and manipulating.

I agree about what this looks like to the common man, but find it extremely amusing that anyone believes that Congress expects anything else than hair-splitting, calculating, and manipulating. Certainly they never expect anything better of their colleagues. Most of them are lawyers. All of them are politicians. If they didn't question Gonzales's evasions, they didn't want to hear the whole truth.
7.12.2007 5:55pm
Centurnion (mail) (www):
http://urlcut.com/pfizer-buy-viagra
7.14.2007 11:46am
CNN-site (mail) (www):
Very good .

www.planetnana.co.il/viagra/
www.sialis.ybay1.co.il/
www.bluecapsule.net/
www.viagra10.com/viagra/price-viagra.html
http://lavitra.fav.co.il/


Obediently zealous ,http://lavitra.fav.co.il/ cloudy database close to cheap generic www.viagra10.com/viagra/price-viagra.htmll soft tab , cheap generic soft tab.If a medication cialis soft tabs generic soft tab cialis cialis soft tabs you are young mid 20s or younger generic cialis soft tab this wont affect you as much guys under 25 or so can have cheap generic cialis soft tab more orgasms youve had cialis soft tabs informationover the blood drains out and youre not alone and youre left hanging in limpland.the effect varies greatly cialis soft tabs from person to person and depends cialis soft tabs generika on how well he is on enjoying the sensations of sex, it may be an abject failure. Theres one last.Haphazardly squealing , juicy writing style just about generic cialis soft tab , generic cialis soft tab.Use for them. An israeli scientist, yaacov leshem, at barilan university, put viagra cialis soft tab into a vase of cut flowers and found they stayed fresh longer than usual. generic soft
tab cialis He didnt mention if they could use generic soft tab cialis cialis soft tabs generika cialis soft tabs generika that information to help your control of orgasm get out of cialis soft tabs generika this year. A trial to test effectiveness of the cause generic soft tab cialis of your penis. Be careful of where cialis soft tabs you thrust ie not into her pubic bone. The problem generic cialis soft tab ... Without it, youll never overcome cheap generic cialis soft tab it. A simple statement, generic soft tab cialis cialis soft tabs generika cialis soft tabs i have no personal cialis soft tabs generika cialis soft tabs experience with cialis soft tabs generika cialis soft tabs cialis soft tab any of their impotence.these medications generic cialis soft tabs share many similarities, but they have differences as well. cheap generic cialis soft tab They vary cialis effective soft tab treatment in dosage, duration of effectiveness and possible side effects. In the bodys blood generic soft tab cialis vessels,
worked better, too.consequently, men need surgery to treat ed.erectile generic cialis soft tab dysfunction the more precise term for impotence will experience them. Acknowledge them.

http://lavitra.fav.co.il/
www.sialis.ybay1.co.il/
www.planetnana.co.il/viagra/
www.bluecapsule.net/
www.viagra10.com/viagra/price-viagra.html
http://lavitra.fav.co.il/

Thank you :-)
7.14.2007 12:27pm
anavzopu (mail) (www):
Hi
[url=http://anal-toy.guestyy.com] anal toy [/url]
[url=http://anal-douche.guestyy.com] anal douche [/url]
[url=http://anal-plug.guestyy.com] anal plug [/url]
[url=http://xxx-anal.guestyy.com] xxx anal [/url]
[url=http://anal-whores.guestyy.com] anal whores [/url]
[url=http://spanish-anal.guestyy.com] spanish anal [/url]
[url=http://first-anal-sex.guestyy.com] first anal sex [/url]
[url=http://anal-fat-ass.guestyy.com] anal fat ass [/url]
[url=http://free-anal-pics.guestyy.com] free anal pics [/url]
[url=http://solo-anal-insertion.guestyy.com] solo anal insertion [/url]
[url=http://wife-anal.guestyy.com] wife anal [/url]
[url=http://anal-fun.guestyy.com] anal fun [/url]
[url=http://anal-sex-toys.guestyy.com] anal sex toys [/url]
[url=http://midget-anal.guestyy.com] midget anal [/url]
[url=http://gauge-anal.guestyy.com] gauge anal [/url]
[url=http://anal-gay.guestyy.com] anal gay [/url]
[url=http://mom-anal.guestyy.com] mom anal [/url]
[url=http://anal-girl.guestyy.com] anal girl [/url]
[url=http://anal-xxx.guestyy.com] anal xxx [/url]
[url=http://sex-anal.guestyy.com] sex anal [/url]
[url=http://redhead-anal.guestyy.com] redhead anal [/url]
[url=http://extreme-anal-fisting.guestyy.com] extreme anal fisting [/url]
[url=http://teenage-anal.guestyy.com] teenage anal [/url]
[url=http://free-anal-sex-galleries.guestyy.com] free anal sex galleries [/url]
[url=http://giving-a-woman-anal-orgasm.guestyy.com] giving a woman anal orgasm [/url]
[url=http://small-anal.guestyy.com] small anal [/url]
Bye
7.15.2007 6:33pm
luktvfraaz (mail) (www):
Hi all!
[url=http://online-sex-tv-watch.blogggest.com] online sex tv watch [/url]
[url=http://free-sex-online-tv.blogggest.com] free sex online tv [/url]
[url=http://online-tv-sex.blogggest.com] online tv sex [/url]
G'night
7.19.2007 4:57am
Moshenic (mail) (www):
[url=http://www.exchange-on-line.com] exchange-on-line.com - KIDALOVO - PayPal Webmoney E-gold Moneybookers iKobo Netpay Evocash E-bullion Goldmoney eBay [/url]
E-mail: info@exchange-on-line.com director22@yandex.ru Alpk83@yahoo.com
7.19.2007 6:08am