Comments (79)

Ajay Kalra wrote on March 13, 2007 1:18 PM:

I am curious about how is WH letting these Emails go public? Doesnt the administration control this?

JoshB wrote on March 13, 2007 1:18 PM:

Isn't there a grounds for impeachment here as well? It's just another dishonest move to grab power. It seems very dangerous in lots of ways. We've almost lost our ability to do anything. We support pre-emptive war, torture, perma-imprisonment... and what really seems like a machine is in power and is interested in setting things up for "future plans."

and I don't even own a tinfoil hat...

drew wrote on March 13, 2007 1:20 PM:

Yipes! WH leg has "signed off" on page 27? That sounds a little suspicious to me. Also prepping for "when the pressure comes". That doesn't sound like SOP to me. Subpeona these suckers!

oldtree wrote on March 13, 2007 1:20 PM:

think anyone will ask Sampson about what he said over the phone?
might be revealing to the conspiracy to obstruct justice that the WH is admitting to being a driving force on.

kentuck wrote on March 13, 2007 1:20 PM:

It seems to me to be the old "absolute power corrupts" with this Republican Party. If Senator Domenici was demanding the resignation of a US Attorney, you can bet he was not the only one. This was part of the corruption that was permitted to take hold in this Administration and you can also bet that it was controlled from the very top.

With the passage of the Patriot Act, the White House had all the power they needed to control the justice system. No longer were they subject to any Senate approval or disapproval, they could hire and fire whomever they wanted, no matter if there was an ongoing investigation of Abramoff, Duke Cunningham, or the powerful Chairman Jerry Lewis, or the "Pokergate" scandal that is still to break.

Anonymous wrote on March 13, 2007 1:21 PM:

Yipes! WH leg has "signed off" on page 27? That sounds a little suspicious to me. Also prepping for "when the pressure comes". That doesn't sound like SOP to me. Subpoena these suckers!

TheraP wrote on March 13, 2007 1:21 PM:

Methinks it's what we DON'T KNOW YET that they're keeping under their hats.

What kind of hats are the opposite of tin foil hats?

Richard Blair wrote on March 13, 2007 1:22 PM:

If they're letting this much dirt go to support the resignation of Sampson, how much dirtier is it going to get? My guess is that Gonzales doesn't make it to 5PM today as AG. They need a really high level fall guy this time, and someone's gotta take one for Karl.

SP wrote on March 13, 2007 1:28 PM:

What's that line about "the real problem we have with Carol Lam"? (Part I page 22, May 11, Sampson to Kelley) Subsequent parts seem to talk about giving an excuse to get rid of her- page 23 part I, Sampson to Mercer- they're asking if anyone ever chided Lam for immigration inforcement, suggesting that's the excuse they'll use to deal with their "real problem", and they're trying to come up with evidence to support it. It sounds like they're even talking about sending prosecutors to support the facade ("remember the premise- AG ordered it").
It's easy to get thing out of context when reading part of an email conversation, but this looks pretty damning.

Anne wrote on March 13, 2007 1:28 PM:

You do have to wonder about that follow-up item, don't you? It had to have been worse and even more incriminating than what was in the e-mail, if he wanted to do it over the phone.

I'm sure the poor memories that afflict so many associated with the White House will be a particular problem when Leahy grills Sampson and Meiers about it.

These people have got to go. Now.

carsick wrote on March 13, 2007 1:29 PM:

The only potentially illegal part so far is the lying to congress bit right?
The USA's serve at the president's pleasure so can be fired at any time.
Lying about why they were fired is ugly but doing it in front of congress is illegal.

SP wrote on March 13, 2007 1:31 PM:

And, to follow up, Mercer's response to Sampson is to ask for a face-to-face meeting immediately (6 minutes later), perhaps to say, "Don't put this shit in writing, you want to get us all thrown in jail?"

Citizen 92 wrote on March 13, 2007 1:33 PM:

In the second document dump, notice that White House Deputy Political Director is writing from the @gwb43.com email domain -- yet his official White House title and phone number is in the footer.

The gwb43.com domain WHOIS record shows that it is owned by the RNC.

Why are White House officials using e-mail accounts that are not their official White House domain server (@who.eop.gov)???

ARE THEY CONSCIOUSLY GOING AROUND HAVING IT REGISTER IN THE EOP SYSTEM SO AS NOT TO BE AN OFFICIAL PRESIDENTIAL RECORD (and hence, hidden from disclosure???)

Certainly a strange practice for a White House official to use an RNC domain for official communication with the Justice Department!!!

Ian wrote on March 13, 2007 1:34 PM:

Even if Gonzalez is sacrificed, I don't see how this can save Rove. With the taint(s) of both the Libby trial and this? Two obstruction of justice investigations?

And what about Specter and Hatch??? Isn't someone going to investigate their roles in all of this?

vox clamantis in red state wrote on March 13, 2007 1:35 PM:

Is it legal to buy a contract on Gonzales resigning? Sounds like internet gambling in a "futures market?"
But if he dies before the contract date, all will be refunded, all bets are off.
can such a contract be "fixed" by the ag's office?

shinronin wrote on March 13, 2007 1:36 PM:

paul in this graf: "In the summary portion of the email, Griffin.." you mean sampson, right?

Bruce wrote on March 13, 2007 1:37 PM:

Carsick -- there's the lying to Congress, but there is mounting evidence of a conspiracy to obstruct justice in the firing of Lam in San Diego. I think the Cunningham/Wilkes/Foggo stuff was the entry point into a vast Republican criminal enterprise, and Lam needed to be shut down before she got any further.

TomSongs wrote on March 13, 2007 1:45 PM:

"It's Time To Clean The Whitehouse Out"

IMPEACH
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xT6Zhx0q8xs

Rob wrote on March 13, 2007 1:46 PM:

I'm puzzled. Other than the blatant power grab, how is any of this either illegal or even unethical?

Now, if to stop an investigation that is already going forward you force an AG out, that I understand. But if the law is that the administration has the power to decide who the AG is, why is this making such news?

It seems to me that if the Administation had not gotten so used to lying and just said these folks are being replaced for political reasons rather than saying they were for performance reasons, there's not too much that could be said.

carsick wrote on March 13, 2007 1:47 PM:

Bruce,
Is there an official investigation of the Lam firing? I don't think conspiracy can be charged unless there is an actual investigation first.
Josh posited the question I'm most interested in: It's not the USAs that were fired but the ones who kept their jobs. Any interesting voter fraud investigations or democratic candidates being investigated by USAs leading up to the election.

jeffgee wrote on March 13, 2007 1:48 PM:

Not a word about any of this at rushlimbaugh.com. The lead story is how Edwards and Obama are "afraid" to appear on Fox News for debates.
I thought Rush might have put his spin on this story but I guess he's too busy pursuing "Excellence in Broadcasting". I'm sure he'll have something about republicans as victims in this story before long.

kentuck wrote on March 13, 2007 1:49 PM:

US Attys can be fired. However, they cannot be fired in the middle of an investigation without question. That is OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

carsick wrote on March 13, 2007 1:50 PM:

Rob,
I agree though lying to congress is a crime. As they say, "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up."

ashabot wrote on March 13, 2007 1:52 PM:

What bastards. When oh when is enough ENOUGH???!!!

jay wrote on March 13, 2007 1:54 PM:

Does this mean that the ones chosen not to be fired are in the hip pocket of the Ag and do as told?

Peterr wrote on March 13, 2007 1:55 PM:

Looking at that document, I can't help but wonder about the white spaces. It sure looks like some names have been redacted to me. Who might be some of the folks being nominated for other jobs (II), folks rumored to be leaving (III), and (most curious) the folks whose names were in the blanks in the list of USAs that ought to be pushed (V)?

If I were a USA, I'd be mighty curious, if not downright nervous, if my state/district fell within the blanks on the alphabetically-sorted list of people to purge.

brianfromhouston wrote on March 13, 2007 1:58 PM:

Josh and his staff should win a Pulitzer for all of their hard work.

Is there a way to create a petition for news/investigative reporting via blog award?

Gone Green wrote on March 13, 2007 2:01 PM:

Kyle Sampson *printed* the email; it is an artifiact of Outlook that his name is at the top of the thing . . . so why did his printout come to the public

Independentmeans wrote on March 13, 2007 2:05 PM:

I heard the bottom line is that USAG Gonzales/White House wanted all say over state death penalties, and that is what started this ball rolling. This is from a reliable source

Danno wrote on March 13, 2007 2:05 PM:

Can Karl Rove be the one to go over this?
I'm sick of having to look at his face!

DallasNE wrote on March 13, 2007 2:05 PM:

Now this is what journalism is supposed to look like. Great work.

As I have posted before, corruption of this magnitude is set up by a bloated Whitehouse staff without any real work to perform.

I still remember back in 2001 when it was pointed out the the Bush Whitehouse had a much larger staff than the outgoing Clinton Whitehouse. There was no doubt then that these extra staff would be purely partisan in the "work" that they performed.

It would be informative to see a chart on the average number of people working directly for the Whitehouse during the last 5 administrations.

Anonymous wrote on March 13, 2007 2:07 PM:

Ironically, a perfect candidate to replace AG Gonzales, a prosecutor with perfect credentials as a crime-buster, a dogged investigator, and a by the book lawyer is none other than Patrick Fitzgerald. What say the group?

Peter Kohan wrote on March 13, 2007 2:16 PM:

Notice how the suggested language to give the Administration this added authority to replace U.S. Attorneys was actually PASSED, helping to move this cleaning house from ideation to fruition without any Congressional interference.

Shameful.

L. Bedingfield wrote on March 13, 2007 2:18 PM:

Folks, seems to me that the entire government is rotten from from top to bottom. A few may wear the mantle of decency and ethical thought and action. But these are becoming fewer all the time. Add up everyone that has enabled the SOB's that run us in their raw,treasonous,scurilous,unethical,selfserving,piggish,arrogant,ungodly,unamerican,monkey assed GRAB FOR PERMANAENT EVERLASTING DOMINANCE OF US! and we wind up with a pathetic few that can stand the light of day. The fact is this,the RICH and their enablers have been manipulating the average person for a very long time.We've been conditioned to look up to them much like the serfs of old or a faithful dog that licks his masters hand when thrown a bone. The people we decry are but the human faces put on a group that has no face,no public presence and like tha Mafia, DOES NOT EXIST! Those that face charges now have made peace with their masters and know their families will be taken care of instead of (taken care of).Paranoid? Yeh maybe.But if at least some of my theory is true then we may as well be in the matrix of a fairly recent movie, with just about the same options. Blue pill or red pill?

NEVERvoteRepubliCONagain wrote on March 13, 2007 2:23 PM:

"Speedy" Gonzales does not know the difference between the truth and a lie. He should be immediately be questioned under oath about his last statement about there was no politics in the firing of the USA. L I A R! What does it take to hold these people responsible for lying under oath to Congress?

I understand there is no chance of a Special Prosecuter. The most corrupt Congress in our history (the DeLay 109th) did not renew the provision to allow a SP.

IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY

S. Rivlin wrote on March 13, 2007 2:25 PM:

The six-year history of George W. Bush's presidency is a strong warning that our democracy is very vulnerable to a power grab that can lead to a dictatorship.

ND wrote on March 13, 2007 2:26 PM:

I’ve not seen any comment regarding the fact that David Iglesias was identified as a “Recommend retaining; strong U.S. Attorneys who have produced, managed well, and exhibited loyalty to the President and Attorney General” given the fact that at document OAG00000007 his name appears in bold letters. That list appears in an attachment to a March 2005 email, but is dated February 2005. The fist time I see Iglesias’ name on any of these lists to be fired is in the November 2006 “Plan” document (OAG 000000041).

This particular USA appears to be fired as a direct consequence of the involvement of Sen. Domenici (already admitted to by the Senator) and NOT because of any job/loyalty reason. The Senator is now identified as “happy as a clam”. I think when the dust settles, it will be the path along which this USA’s firing came that will be the real story. Because he did not play along with a political game by Sen. Domenici, he was added to the list.

Ted wrote on March 13, 2007 2:26 PM:

To understand what is going on today you need to go back 300 years. This 3 hour presentation explains everything. It is a little boring at the begining but you need the background and it really hits home by the end.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8753934454816686947

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2665915773877500927

charlie mills wrote on March 13, 2007 2:32 PM:

I love the last line of the email, "at less political costs to the White House."

ddp wrote on March 13, 2007 2:33 PM:

RE: Ajay Kalra

The ACLU filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to obtain these documents. The White House wouldn't have released them on their own.

TheGris wrote on March 13, 2007 2:34 PM:

Isn't this the definition of "obstruction of justice" on a massive scale?

txdad wrote on March 13, 2007 2:38 PM:

If these US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and can be dismissed at any time, what is the issue? How is this different then what Clinton/Reno did during their administration? Sometimes it appears we look to create issues/problems where there are none!

j swift wrote on March 13, 2007 2:40 PM:

If the WH was working with Gonzo to remove USA's to delay or stop investigation or ongoing cases into poltical corruption then that could be obstruction of justice.

The USA serve at the pleasure of the President but by no stretch does that give the President the right to break the law of the land.

magster wrote on March 13, 2007 2:42 PM:

Citizen 92. Write a Kos diary. Spread the word. That is really curious info you commented on.

pip wrote on March 13, 2007 2:43 PM:

read the below blogs too! Kinda interesting

Prakosh wrote on March 13, 2007 2:44 PM:

The question should not be what did the ones who were fired do to be fired but what did those who were not fired do to be retained?

eric wrote on March 13, 2007 2:48 PM:

"If these US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and can be dismissed at any time, what is the issue? How is this different then what Clinton/Reno did during their administration? Sometimes it appears we look to create issues/problems where there are none!

Posted by: txdad
Date: March 13, 2007 02:38 PM"

It's *WHY* these USAs were put on the list that makes it a scandal. In the case of Carol Lam, it is obvious as she was busy indicting republicans out in San Diego.

You are correct, I don't see an email that specifically says that they are firing for political and/or obstruction reasons, but that will come out in future documents or by the circumstances surrounding them.

It is also a scandal, of course, because Gonzales pretty much lied when he said that none of what we are seeing in these emails even happened.

j swift wrote on March 13, 2007 2:48 PM:

Wake up txdad!

This is not the same situation as a new president appointing USA's at the beginning of his term, or dismissing them for embezzlement, or murdering their wife, or any other numerous crimes.

If the admin and/or individuals in DOJ are actually doing this to obstruct justice it is a crime. If they are doing to load the USA's office with new people, ask yourself this question.

What friggin purpose does it serve to put new people in these positions with around 2 years left in the current Presidency? These people will find probably find themselves out the door even if a Republican is elected because he will have his own little bootlickers to appoint. If there is a Dem president same thing, he/she will have their own little bootlickers to appoint.

kentuck wrote on March 13, 2007 2:48 PM:

No one resigns for no reason - especially not in this White House. Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff to Alberto Gonzalez, resigned yesterday, according to the AG in his news conference of a few minutes ago. Why??
The AG said sometimes things happen in a large dept where the CEO doesn't know about it? So, Alberto did not know about what happened with the US Attorneys and, anyway, the person responsible is now gone. He resigned yesterday. So, where's the problem?
Is the AG admitting that there was some "wrongdoing"? Does he believe it was "illegal"? And why is it different now under the new Patriot Act than it was under the Clinton Administration? What role did the Senate play in US Atty's appointments then that they cannot play now since the Patriot Act? Can anyone answer that?

Hasaler wrote on March 13, 2007 2:51 PM:

Who are the redacted names in the message? Especially the original message from Harriet Miers on page 2.

truther wrote on March 13, 2007 2:52 PM:

you people are ridiculous!

Slinky the Wonder Ferret wrote on March 13, 2007 2:52 PM:

Who sends emails in Courier font these days? It's not the default, so this implies that BOTH parties were using it. That it originated from within the RNC is suspicious. It might even indicate that it is a red herring tossed out to get the hounds chasing it.

It would be prudent to confirm the veracity of both the source and the document.

The Phantom Menace wrote on March 13, 2007 2:52 PM:

Jeepers, those are real email addresses. You don't suppose anyone would, you know, get any IDEAS about maybe SUBSCRIBING those addresses to every Viagra spam list on earth. That'd just be mean.

Citizen 92 wrote on March 13, 2007 3:02 PM:

magster:

Citizen92 is a frequent contributor to Kos.

A few more logs for the fire:

- This White House has gone to extraordinary lengths to shield Presidential records from view;

- A major case in point on this is the shell game played with the US Secret Service entry records (the Abramoff, Gannon, VP's Energy Task Force records have been variously sought) now shielded behind a hastily signed agreement between NARA and the Secret Service calling them "Presidential Records."

- I assume the White House directed the NARA-USSS deal because they had no hope of keeping the WH Visitor entry records outside of a government system (and hidden from public view).

- By going the extra step and sending official White House messaging through an external server (gwb43.com) - they're doing two things -- 1/keeping the records outside of a government server (all eop.gov records are bcc'd to the Office of Records Management at EOP) and 2/routing records to the RNC (the domain owner).

- Where this logic comes up short, however, is that if a government official creates a message, regardless of where it is composed as a matter of business, it is a "government record." If the Bush White House is using gwb43.com as a skirt to this issue - they're breaking the law. The Clinton White House government computers had no access to hotmail, or other free servers for the same reason - to ensure ALL Presidential records are captured.

This really doesn't look or smell right.

Anonymous wrote on March 13, 2007 3:13 PM:

Payback for the CRIMES of these TRAITORS.
Another example:

Joseph Wilson is a SPY BOSS, and has been for 30 years.

I KNEW that Bush would end up being exposed by Wilson

after the Bush TRAITORS exposed Valerie Plame, who SPECIALIZED in WMD’s,

thus IRREPARABLY DAMAGING our NATIONAL SECURITY, demolishing the

LIE that Bush, Cheney, etc.

GIVE A DAMN about protecting Americans & the USA.

Russ wrote on March 13, 2007 3:16 PM:

Power To The People!

A Hermit wrote on March 13, 2007 3:22 PM:

I love that they thought this would mean "...less political costs to the White House."

So, how's that working out for ya?

Prakosh wrote on March 13, 2007 3:26 PM:

I read citizen92's post differently. If as Josh Marshall indicated in his post on the story last night is correct and at least some of this is related to the unwillingness to chase voting fraud cases then it appears that the RNC might be involved at the decision making level in the same way that the RNC was directly involved in the Watergate affair. And if this is the case, then ther is more going on here than just the President getting involved in justice and this might be an even bigger scandal. I think that there may be a precedent for the President's involvement at some level, but there is no precedent for the RNC being involved in directing the Department of Justice. Or in directing or even suggesting the hiring or firing of Prosecutors. If these emails were written and sent on RNC computers, RNC involvement is not a stretch.

Ben Swenson wrote on March 13, 2007 4:06 PM:

Since we get to read other people's emails... I would like to read Lam's emails to see which liberals were pushing her to pursue republicans. The point is that EVERYTHING IS POLITICAL.

DeAnna wrote on March 13, 2007 4:10 PM:

On May 31, 2006

Kyle Sampson sends a blueberry message to Bill Mercer(ODAG)

Has ODAG ever called Carol Lam and woodshedded her re immigration? Has anyone?
If the AG ordered 20 more prosecuters to S.D. Cal. to do immigration only, where would we get them from(remember the premise: AG has ordered it)?
Please advise.

I believe this is the setup for Carol Lam.

slb wrote on March 13, 2007 4:43 PM:

To Ben Swenson:

What leverage would Congressional Democrats have over a federal prosecutor who serves a Republican president? They can't exactly complain to the White House that she won't play ball with the opposition party. So how, exactly, could they try to strong-arm her into going after her boss's political allies?

(The code word is "crush" -- I love it!)

Deano wrote on March 13, 2007 4:50 PM:

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no wrong doing here in this email. They can fire USAs at their discresion and the USAs serve "at the pleasure of the President", as it is said.

The scandla here is that the firings were done for specific political reasons for not buckling under pressure to conduct their duties in a partisan fashion.

I believe Clinton fired and replaced every last one when he cane into office, and certainly Bush would have the same right. The issue at hand is he didn't do that, but then fired people because they would not pursue investigations against Dems in tight election races for questionable reasons, or that he fired people like the woman in SD who successfully went after Repugs (Cunningham).

I know it's a little subtle, but I believe that is the real issue here. Please, anyone, correct me if I'm worng.

ellenwings wrote on March 13, 2007 5:39 PM:

Deano - Bush was firing his OWN appointed people in most if not all cases. John McCay in WA 2004 gov. election followed the bid of the RNC and pursued every possible lead to overturn the Democratic win. When he, with extensive zeal and the help of the FBI, found no fraud, he ended up on the hit list. During this time he was illegally pressured by Doc Hastings, congressman, to come up with something to overturn the election. At the time Rep.Hastings was chairman of the House ethics committee. LOL

MIKE wrote on March 13, 2007 9:09 PM:

U.S. atterniees and attereney generals are appointed and Us Aternies can be eassigned and reassigned as disired. Theye shsoould be replacede if they are not doing their jobs or for any good cause. SENITORS should notnessicary have their dicisions automatically approved. The Us attornies should do the same everywhere and have the same standards.

MIKE

yeranalyst wrote on March 13, 2007 9:56 PM:

What I want to know is will the U.S. Military try to stop the American people from storming the bastille.
Deano, stop hiding fascist tendencies behind technicalities that were drawn up by the crime cartel.

Honor wrote on March 14, 2007 12:28 AM:

Government should be afraid of the people... not the people afraid of the government.

Backtalk wrote on March 14, 2007 1:59 PM:

You weenies forget dismissing USAs that don't jive with the Administration's policies has plenty of precedent. Look it up before your heads start exploding about our communo-fascist-satanic government that you're so afraid of. Clinton did it before him. Were you afraid of him? Of course not.

That it's happening midterm like this doesn't have precedent, and THAT is what's being used as an excuse by the political polarity to make a fuss. If the ninnyheaded roaring by wannabe political blog commenters would get the facts, they'd have a bleep of a lot less to say. And it wouldn't be over-stupid-simplified like this:

"Government should be afraid of the people... not the people afraid of the government."

Honor

Thank you, Honor! Thank you. We're all mighty inspired. Now what does this have to do with an executive precedent to move USAs around because your party is in power?

Absofeckinothing. Bunch of whining neophytes. Yeah. Look it up.

Robert wrote on March 14, 2007 6:50 PM:

Is some of the text in the house.gov PDF redacted or does it only look redacted?

EasyRider wrote on March 15, 2007 2:09 AM:

Between this thread and the one here: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002759.php There is a lot of great information to be shared and answers each others questions.

littlesky wrote on March 15, 2007 7:53 AM:

If this idea of bypassing the normal channels was first floated in 2003 and then they got serious about it in 2004, shouldn't we also be asking questions of John Ashcroft?

judyinnm wrote on March 15, 2007 3:15 PM:

Are we SURE we want rid of Gonzalez? Remember how bad we thought Ashcroft was? I wouldn't put it past gerogejunior to haul John Yoo out, as his choice replacement.

G. Andrew Barker wrote on March 15, 2007 7:34 PM:

"They need a really high level fall guy this time, and someone's gotta take one for Karl."

Don't you really mean another fallguy for Rove? I wonder how many there have been so far?

Herb Stoller wrote on March 18, 2007 4:03 PM:

US Attorney Firing Scandal

It seems to me that most people are missing the boat on this US Attorney firing ‘scandal’. Most folks seem to be concerned with what the fired 6-8 US Attorneys did or didn’t do to earn the wrath of Rove and Gonzales. The real question is what the other 85 US Attorneys did to be considered ‘good Bushies’ by Rove and Gonzales. Was the abbreviate investigation of US Senator Mendez in NJ just before the election and example of a US Attorney being a ‘good Bushie’? Are there other examples?

Cyclobenzaprine 10mg wrote on March 22, 2007 6:52 PM:

Cyclobenzaprine is a muscle relaxant, used to treat the pain and stiffness of muscle injuries, including strains, sprains and muscle spasms. The active ingredient in Cyclobenzaprine is cyclobenzaprine. For more information on Cyclobenzaprine 10mg visit http://prescriptiondrugs.noprescriptiondrugstore.us/cyclobenzaprine10mg.php

Order Zanaflex online wrote on May 17, 2007 6:43 PM:

Order Zanaflex online: FedEx overnight shipping, free prescription with your order and 24/7 customer service, http://DrugsHome.com

Prescription drug: Zanaflex wrote on May 29, 2007 11:46 PM:

Zanaflex Uses, How Taken, Warnings/Precautions, Missed Dose, Possible Side Effects, Storage, Overdose, More Information, where to buy online, http://drgshm.blogspot.com

Esgic Plus generic free prescription next day online pharmacy wrote on October 3, 2007 12:53 PM:

Online pharmacy: 24/7 customer service, Tramadol 50 mg FedEx next day free prescription

Esgic Plus pills headache pills overnight shipping free prescription wrote on December 5, 2007 7:24 PM:

Free prescription FedEx overnight shipping pills

epenisa wrote on January 11, 2008 4:02 AM:

Hello
Nice work from your side... have a nice time with yoru blog :)
Bye