« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
No Written Petraeus/WH Report?
So we may not get to see the basis for General Petraeus' computations that the surge has reduced violence in Iraq. An anonymous senior military officer tells The Washington Times' Bill Gertz not to expect a paper trail when Petraeus testifies to Congress on Monday.
A senior military officer said there will be no written presentation to the president on security and stability in Iraq. "There is no report. It is an assessment provided by them by testimony," the officer said.The only hard copy will be Gen. Petraeus' opening statement to Congress, scheduled for Monday, along with any charts he will use in explaining the results of the troop surge in Baghdad over the past several months.
Will the charts explain the methodology used to derive the information they contain?
(Via ThinkProgress)
Advertisement
Comments (309)
Aredubya wrote on September 7, 2007 1:36 PM:Will the charts explain the methodology used to derive the information they contain?
No.
This has been another Simple Answers to Stupid Questions (thank you Atrios :) )
Dan wrote on September 7, 2007 1:39 PM:Wow. Anecdotal evidence from a guy whose reputation hinges upon the surge working. Expect lies and damned lies.
R. A. wrote on September 7, 2007 1:41 PM:"I once knew a statistician who drowned while wading across a lake with an AVERAGE depth of three feet..."
Kilgore Trout wrote on September 7, 2007 1:44 PM:No surprise. The Cheney-BushCo regime has a track record of making EVERYTHING opaque.
lilybart wrote on September 7, 2007 1:45 PM:Will congress get to ask any questions of Patreus?? Like, how do we know for sure that if one is shot in the front of the head, the violent act is somehow NOT related to the war???
jack shadenfruede wrote on September 7, 2007 1:48 PM:When will the Dems get some balls and tell Bush and Petraeus that no written report is UNACCEPTABLE.This Bush White House wants no fingerprints on anything. Remember we will let Rove and Gonzo be questioned behind closed doors ,no transcript.If this was not so serious it would be laughable.The American people want answers.JackShadenfruede
Scalia's Robes wrote on September 7, 2007 1:50 PM:Well wait just a darn minute. Wasn't the big news a week or so ago that the report was not going to be written by Petraeus, as we had been led to believe, but rather by the friendly and forthcoming folks in the White House? Now we're being told even that was not the truth?
I am shocked. Shocked I say.
security code: zebra...they never change their stripes.
TheraP wrote on September 7, 2007 1:50 PM:Reports about this report are taking on the flavor of reports about what happened in a certain restroom. Perhaps we could have side by side charts of each "event" and how the event was first played and then spun and then played again and spun again. I feel like I'm watching a re-run here!
Paul Revere wrote on September 7, 2007 2:00 PM:Can someone clarify for me, in what respect are we a democracy at this point?
Pastor Doodah wrote on September 7, 2007 2:07 PM:"The Petraeus Report will answer all", they said. Then they repeated it. "Petraeus Report. Petraeus Report. Petraeus Report. Petraeus Report. Petraeus Report. Petraeus Report. Petraeus Report."
Suddenly it's "DId we say report? We meant the Petraeus informal chat and slide show. And it doesn't mean anything, he's just going tell us how well everything is turning out."
code: sugar
iggy wrote on September 7, 2007 2:16 PM:At least this way they can't say they lost the damn thing, the way they lost the 5 million or so emails!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jolly Ranchero wrote on September 7, 2007 2:28 PM:The next time my boss demands a report, I'm gunna go all Petraeus on his ass and just tell him things are great and, oh by the way, here's a bar chart proving it using data that, trust me, kicks ass, even though I wont show it to you.
OCPatriot wrote on September 7, 2007 2:30 PM:Hey, what did you expect?
markie wrote on September 7, 2007 2:30 PM:You who protest are all VICTIMS.
That goes for the Democrats like Reid, Levin, Pelosi .
Until we get rid of them, and put some others in their place, this is what we'll get.
Stop protesting and start working to bring pressure on them, if you really want to end the war.
suprise, suprise, suprise.
Rufus wrote on September 7, 2007 2:39 PM:We are so screwed.
MartyK wrote on September 7, 2007 2:43 PM:In response to Paul Revere's question: We never were a Democracy. We're supposed to be a Republic. (The Founding Father's knew the difference.)
What we actually are right now is a Kakocracy.
madmax wrote on September 7, 2007 2:44 PM:
urbino wrote on September 7, 2007 2:46 PM:Under our constitution when the goverment
becomes so appressive we have the legal
right to dispose that goverment.It is
called (INPEACHMENT).
Somebody help me remember, here. Isn't a report required by law? Wasn't that included in the last funding bill or something?
If so, please tell me they didn't leave the reporting medium to the discretion of . . . anybody.
fuzz wrote on September 7, 2007 2:46 PM:Well, before jumping to conclusions might this simply be an accurate statement that Petraeus is not providing the written report to Congress, which we (we being TPM readers) have known pretty much all along? There's nothing in this statement to indicate the White House isn't going to provide the written report to Congress "with input from Petraeus and Crocker" as expected. This statement indicates the president won't be receiving a written statement from Petraeus--and as far as that goes, who cares? It's not like the president would read it in the first place. Nor would he release it to the public; he'd just claim executive privilege.
Long Memory wrote on September 7, 2007 2:56 PM:To quote John "Bluto" Blutarsky in Animal House: "You fucked up. You trusted us." Hey, didn't the final credits say Bluto would become a senator? That might explain a lot.
biggerbox wrote on September 7, 2007 2:56 PM:Unofficial Oval Office transcript of General Petraeus reporting his assessment to the President:
PRES: "So, Davey, how's it goin' over there? Y'all gonna kick ass, ain't ya?"
PETRAEUS: "Sir, yes, sir. We're slowly making progress, I think."
PRES: "Thought so. Heckuva job. Want some ice cream? I do. (into phone) HEY! I want Ice Cream! "
End of unofficial transcript.
NCSteve wrote on September 7, 2007 3:03 PM:The methodology? Right there on the PowerPoint slide depicting a guy with his pants around his ankles and one hand reaching into his rectum.
NCSteve wrote on September 7, 2007 3:03 PM:The methodology? Right there on the PowerPoint slide depicting a guy with his pants around his ankles and one hand reaching into his rectum.
Legalize wrote on September 7, 2007 3:16 PM:I'm certain we can rely on the undocumented assertions of a man who has an interest in the outcome of the very operation upon which he is reporting. There's nothing self-serving about that at all because everyone knows the surge is working!!
code: 'false.' These things are too easy.
Long Memory wrote on September 7, 2007 3:17 PM:I can think of one person in the White House I'm certain can't even spell methodology.
Legalize wrote on September 7, 2007 3:21 PM:If there is no written report, as is fucking mandated, Congress shouldn't even sit and listen. Cancel the hearing, and all consideration of future war funding bills until a verifiable report is issued.
Of course Congress will merely fall over itself praising Petreaus' wonderful honor and blah blah blah, followed closely by giving the Commander Guy another blank check.
jasan wrote on September 7, 2007 3:21 PM:If this is allowed to proceed, then America does not have two political party's, just one, and we are now imperial....
Allen wrote on September 7, 2007 3:26 PM:very simple, no hard copy report no money... period..
Allen wrote on September 7, 2007 3:27 PM:in other words, if dubya doesnt profile raw data, there no money... its call checks & balances...
Rodney wrote on September 7, 2007 3:28 PM:The White House has already written the script for Gen. Patreaus to recite to Congress, "I don't recall. I'll have to get back to you on that."
antimatter wrote on September 7, 2007 3:30 PM:It is important to understand the difference between a scam and a con. It takes many scams to float a really good con job. The beauty of a well designed scam is that it sucks you into the real con even while you are rejecting the obvious scam. The scams are endless:
surge/no surge
benchmarks/no benchmarks
national reconcilliation/bottoms up
secret report/public report
commander's report/White House PR paper
written report/presentation
The real con is that the American people have been sucked into paying at least two trillion dollars and in the end will have nothing to show for it. That fact tends to get lost in all the ventilating over the obvious scams.
Why the con job was pulled in the first place is an interesting question that to this day has not been fully answered. However, it is pretty clear that it was part of an even higher level con.
foggylady wrote on September 7, 2007 4:32 PM:Boy Howdy, I am impressed ! Due to budget shortages, there will be only smoke, no mirrors,
Brian M wrote on September 7, 2007 4:43 PM:but still the farce moves along while Congress responds like a a bobblehead on the dashboard and the Great Unwashed is still trying to remember which lies came first 10 months ago.
Mass amnesia and brazen balls...whatta combo.
At what point in our history was it decided that political debate meant saying whatever it would take for "our" side to "win" the debate - truth be damned!
This isn't a silly game to be won or lost, this is a major cultural movement and sometimes I feel as if there is only one side that actually understands that and they are very focused on accomplishing their goal.
Scott L wrote on September 7, 2007 5:03 PM:I wonder if the general will use the same chart makers that Powell used in the UN when explaining why we needed to start the war in Iraq? The drawings used to PROVE WMD's was so compelling that they should use the same artist next week.
parrot wrote on September 7, 2007 5:45 PM:Basically, Petraus and Bush are both trying to avoid perjury before the Congress. If they or anyone else involved in the report drafts the report knowing that there are lies in the report, they are guilty of a crime.
The original purpose of legally requiring a report was to actually get some facts before Congress so
TexasVietVet wrote on September 8, 2007 12:09 AM:Congress could make some decisions. A legal and Constitutional crisis now looms because the Executive refuses to uphold this law and refuses to be caught lying to the Congress...the Administration is in a bind...and the People are in one too if Congress does not demand the report...I think a case for Impeachment could be made on this attempt to not tell the Congress the truth about what is going on in Iraq. Yet, the dance continues...
Let's see now. Gen. Betrayous, the conservanazis general, will be giving a report on the mission he designed for dealing with the insurgency in Iraq. Well, if I was a senator on the committee that Betrayous would have to testify, I'd make sure he presented the committee with a copy of his report BEFORE HE GETS UP TO TAKE THE OATH SO HE CAN LIE. Gen. Betrayous is looking to be CHAIR OF THE JOINT CHIEFS. Can't get that if he don't give bu$h the blowjob he wants.
Deano wrote on September 8, 2007 1:36 AM:Is Petraus making his report to a joint session of Congress, or to a Congressional committee? If it's to a joint session, there won't be an opportunity for Congressmen to ask questions, challenge his statements, or make any comments. That would suit the Administration just fine. Who decided on the context for the Petraus report?
kentuck wrote on September 8, 2007 7:58 AM:Standard M.O. for this Administration. No need for written communication - that makes it easier to argue that he said something that he really didn't say. This is typical for this White House.
That is why the Congress needs to keep the General up there for 2-3 days of testimony, so they can go over every detail of the surge and the plan for the future. The Congress needs to get all the information possible from this General so the White House cannot argue that the General believes something he really doesn't believe.
jmasusbl wrote on September 8, 2007 9:54 AM:Does it make any difference? Whatever Petraeus says the Republicans will find it sufficient to continue their lemming like adherence to the preservation of the Bush presidency.
The question is whether or not the American voter has sufficient interest in knowing and memory to hold the Republican go=allongers and Joe Lieberman responsible.
bipolar2 wrote on September 8, 2007 12:38 PM:Those wretched ephemeral babblers lusting after the purple in '08 notwithstanding,
a slide into the abyss can only be slowed, not reversed.
No political force exists which can not be enslaved or aborted by MIXR -- the military industrial xian right.
Bush, our postmodern Caligula, merely catalyzes the incurable rot of Empire.
This is not necessarily a bad thing.
"Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make insane."
eye-of horus
Kenneth E. Tucker wrote on September 8, 2007 4:19 PM:copyright asserted 2007
hmmm.... "....not to expect a paper trail..."
well, it worked in the theft of the 2004 general election in Ohio. why would you change a system that 'works' (ie keeps ameriKans in the dark and feed sh*t)...?
you gotta hand it to them (walking papers), they DO have HUGE balls, and, a 'wide stance'.
Kenneth E. Tucker wrote on September 8, 2007 4:32 PM:wordplay heard/seen (an apprecaited for it's en pointe targeting, on another blog re: the (non?) Patraeus report: General BetrayUs
also worth a read for some ACCURATE background on this false prophet:
http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/article2941917.ece
keep digging and keep bitching
Phil in New Mexico wrote on September 10, 2007 12:26 PM:I'm sure that George Soros, or someone like him, could guarantee General Petraeus a generous life pension if he would only de-couple from the White House and tell the truth.
But I'm naive, as usual.
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 6:44 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 6:44 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 6:48 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 6:48 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 7:22 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 7:26 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 8:03 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 8:05 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 8:46 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 8:46 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 9:26 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 10:06 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 10:08 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 10:48 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 10:49 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 11:30 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 11:30 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 12:12 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 12:12 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 12:54 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 12:55 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 1:39 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 1:41 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 2:25 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 2:27 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 3:10 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 4:00 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 4:41 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 4:45 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 5:31 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 6:11 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 6:14 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 6:51 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 6:55 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 7:32 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 7:37 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 8:15 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 8:20 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 8:55 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 9:00 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 9:33 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 9:40 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 9:40 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 10:13 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 10:19 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 10:51 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 10:58 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 11:31 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 11:38 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 12:15 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 1:05 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 1:35 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 1:43 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 2:13 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 2:22 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 2:53 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 3:01 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 3:31 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 3:31 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 3:40 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 4:10 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 4:20 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 4:20 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 4:21 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 4:54 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 5:01 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 5:01 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 5:40 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 6:08 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 6:46 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 6:57 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 7:22 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 7:34 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 7:59 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 8:11 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 8:36 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 8:50 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 9:14 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 9:27 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 2:52 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 3:31 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 3:35 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 4:14 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 4:17 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 4:59 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 5:39 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 5:40 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 6:18 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 6:19 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 6:59 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 6:59 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 7:37 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 8:14 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 8:17 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 8:17 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 8:51 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 8:54 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 9:32 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 10:08 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 10:12 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 10:46 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 10:50 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 11:24 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 11:28 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 6, 2007 11:28 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 12:01 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 12:06 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 12:41 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 12:47 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 1:20 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 1:26 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 2:02 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 2:08 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 2:43 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 3:24 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 3:31 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 5:20 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 5:25 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 6:42 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 7:17 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 7:20 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 7:20 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 7:55 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 7:57 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 8:33 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 8:34 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 9:12 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 9:52 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 9:53 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 10:35 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 10:36 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 11:17 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 11:18 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 12:01 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 12:02 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 12:46 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 12:47 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 1:30 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 1:33 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 2:17 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 2:21 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 3:06 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 3:10 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 3:54 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 3:58 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 4:41 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 4:42 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 4:45 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 5:29 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 6:55 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 7:02 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 7:02 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 7:03 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 7:35 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 7:43 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 7:43 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 8:15 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 8:56 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 9:05 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 9:40 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 9:51 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 1:53 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 1:58 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 2:34 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 3:14 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 3:18 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 3:54 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 3:58 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 4:35 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 4:35 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 4:37 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 5:14 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 5:17 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 5:18 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 5:55 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 5:58 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 6:36 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 6:36 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 7:20 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 7:21 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 7:21 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 7:59 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 8:38 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 8:40 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 9:18 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 9:21 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 9:57 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 10:01 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 10:41 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 10:46 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 10:46 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 11:24 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 11:29 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 12:07 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 12:12 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 12:50 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 12:56 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 12:56 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 1:31 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 1:38 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 2:13 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 2:19 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 2:50 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 2:58 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 10, 2007 3:49 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 10, 2007 3:49 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 10, 2007 3:53 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 10, 2007 4:29 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 10, 2007 4:29 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 9:58 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 10:03 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 10:44 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 10:49 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 11:30 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 11:35 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 11:37 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 12:18 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 12:22 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 1:06 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 1:57 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 2:00 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 2:41 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 2:42 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 2:46 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 3:23 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 3:24 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 4:03 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 4:05 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 4:06 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 4:47 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 5:28 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 5:29 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 5:29 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 6:09 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 6:09 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 6:49 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 6:50 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 7:27 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 7:28 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 8:06 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 8:44 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 8:46 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 9:27 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 10:06 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 10:49 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 10:54 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 11:34 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 11:35 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 11:39 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 13, 2007 11:01 AM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 13, 2007 11:07 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 13, 2007 11:51 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 13, 2007 11:56 AM:
Anonymous wrote on November 13, 2007 12:44 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 13, 2007 12:48 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 13, 2007 12:49 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 13, 2007 1:39 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 13, 2007 2:26 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 13, 2007 2:29 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 13, 2007 3:20 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 13, 2007 3:22 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 13, 2007 4:16 PM:
Anonymous wrote on November 13, 2007 5:09 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 13, 2007 5:11 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 13, 2007 6:01 PM:[URL=][/URL]
Anonymous wrote on November 13, 2007 6:02 PM: