April 23, 2006
ABC's Contribution to McCarthy Whitewash
As Kim Priestap, writing for Wizbang! notes, the American mainstream media are regaining their footing and circling the wagons to rally to the defense of Mary McCarthy, the CIA analyst fired for leaking information to the press.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
ABC News is answering the partisan call. In a Saturday story on their website ABC manages to put together a remarkably dishonest piece of "journalism" predicting the fall of the Republic if leaking classified information remains a crime.
Not only did ABC fail to mention McCarthy's political leanings (she contributed $2000 to John Kerry's unsuccessful 2004 bid for the Presidency), there is also this:
"This a matter of principle," said Ray McGovern, a former fellow CIA analyst, "where she said my oath, my promise not to reveal secrets is superceded by my oath to defend the constitution of the U.S."ABC leaves out the inconvenient, but telling, fact that Ray McGovern is one of the lunatic fringe who now makes his living calling for the impeachment of President Bush.
Prepare for much more dishonesty from the media, especially now that European investigators have found no trace of the CIA renditions that McCarthy whispered of to Dana Priest at the Washington Post.
Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto, Stop the ACLU, and Vince Aut Morire.
Posted by: Bluto at
12:20 AM
| Comments (62)
| Add Comment
Post contains 220 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Culture of treason and sedition. 1:47 am pst
link fixed for you by howie
Posted by: Rubin at April 23, 2006 02:47 AM (73b9H)
2
mods, plz delete first, couldn't get tags to work, thanks.
Mary McCarthy..Culture of treason and sedition
http://www.foxnews.com/images/201228/2_21_042206_cialeak.jpg
Posted by: Rubin at April 23, 2006 02:51 AM (73b9H)
3
So when a dhimmicratic donor leaks classified information it's okay, but when the President does it, he should be impeached? Who can really argue convincingly that liberals shouldn't all be shot?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 23, 2006 05:11 AM (0yYS2)
4
It really sucks, but they're going to get away with it... Anyone who leaks info to the benefit of the democratic party will absolutely get a free pass by the media. What a double-standard.
Posted by: Agent Meatball at April 23, 2006 05:26 AM (30FRH)
5
"where she said my oath, my promise not to reveal secrets is superceded by my oath to defend the constitution of the U.S."
Well with all the things they find in the Constitution that no one else sees, it's no surprise. Part of it must be written in invisible ink. Those founding fathers were such pranksters.
Posted by: Oyster at April 23, 2006 05:37 AM (YudAC)
6
Oyster,
good point. Liberals don' read the Constitution, they re-write it.
IM's right. Kill em all.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 23, 2006 08:16 AM (8e/V4)
7
Kill them all, as Jesus would? If liberals have a tendency to rewrite the constitution, you've got some biblical passages you've been rewriting in a much more significant way!
Why not change your name, Carlos, to Jesus for Genocide!
Posted by: jd at April 23, 2006 09:22 AM (uT71O)
8
jd,
would you please lighten up.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 23, 2006 09:56 AM (8e/V4)
9
Ray McGovern is also a board member of VIPS (Veteran Intelligent Professionals for Sanity) that in 2003 called on active duty intelligence professionals to leak classified information.
Gee..I wonder how they missed THAT!
Posted by: Rick Moran at April 23, 2006 10:46 AM (wZLWV)
10
More from the cBS news
Posted by: sandpiper at April 23, 2006 01:29 PM (gJhPg)
11
Sorry, Jesusland. I didn't see the humor in "kill them all" in reference to liberals. It is a wonderful joke. Let me try one:
Kill all the fundamentalist Christians!
Don't you think that's funny?
I don't...but then, I don't have your sense of humor...
Posted by: jd at April 23, 2006 01:52 PM (uT71O)
12
Has anyone been reading AJ Strata and Captains Quarters and Right Wing Nuthouse about this? Some pretty good reasoning behind this being a sting operation within the CIA to flush out leakers. The more I think about it the more possible it seems. What are your thoughts?
Posted by: Oyster at April 23, 2006 02:38 PM (YudAC)
13
JD, Carlos' handle refers to where he lives rather than specifically to his religious affiliation, though he is a Christian. I, however, am not, and though I follow a policy of live and let live, I also have no mercy whatsoever for enemies or traitors. When TSHTF, any libtards or muslims that come in contact with me are screwed.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 23, 2006 03:09 PM (0yYS2)
14
I'd agree, and I'd expand your observation--ANYONE who comes into contact with you probably regrets it. You have chronic halitosis of the soul.
Posted by: jd at April 23, 2006 03:35 PM (uT71O)
15
>>>Kill all the fundamentalist Christians!
Another failed and simplistic comparison from you, jd. Religious bigotry is no more comparable to hating Liberals than racial bigotry is. They are two different animals. So while hating Liberals wholesale is perfectly justifiable, hating christians and blacks or mexicans isn't.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 23, 2006 03:36 PM (8e/V4)
16
I didn't know a soul had a smell. Maybe you've been smelling soles, not souls... which of course raises lots of questions about your personal habits. Anyway, halitosis is at the opposite end, but you seem to have a lovely time sniffing the asses of America's enemies, so I'll leave you to it.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 23, 2006 05:35 PM (0yYS2)
17
jesusland--I didn't think hating anyone was part of the Jesus message. Maybe I missed the part in the bible where it says: yea, those who seek national health care, those shall the lord smiteth.
Beyond that, do you really HATE liberals? Are all of their ideas, every one, wrong? Are they all retarded or mentally ill, if not worthy of killing? I certainly don't hate conservatives--I often agree with them. It seems to me that this country needs conservatives, liberals, and moderates, because, as I've said before, truth seldom walks consistently with any one of them. Compromise is essential to the American system, and always has been, back to the days of Hamilton and Jefferson. Can you compromise with those you viscerally hate?
Posted by: jd at April 23, 2006 08:23 PM (uT71O)
18
It's funny how liberals always talk about compromise when America's enemies are losing, but talk about surrender when things don't look so good for us.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 23, 2006 08:55 PM (0yYS2)
19
Well we are right about the terrorists. Its hard to deny that forever.
Posted by: Howie at April 23, 2006 09:09 PM (D3+20)
20
How about alternatively kill all Leftwing Christians? There's probably more of them than Fundamentalists actually, so a richer playground for the terrorists who have demonstrated they don't care which are killed as long as it happens - Buddhists, Hindus, Shakers, and funky whole-bean-and-sprouts tofu-eating Breatharians. Wonder how the terrorist feel about the ultimate apostasy, Scie*gaak*h*h*t%l#gists.
Posted by: -keith in silicon valley at April 23, 2006 09:37 PM (pmP8H)
21
>>>Beyond that, do you really HATE liberals?
jd,
I don't hate all Liberals. Most Libs I know are pretty ok human beings, including about half of my family. We're split right down the middle. But I do hate, nay, despise, Liberalism for the mental disorder it causes in people that I love-- just like I would hate the AIDS virus for infecting them. That's how much I hate Liberalism.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 23, 2006 10:26 PM (8e/V4)
22
MOLE: Mary McCarthy [Clinton-era National Security Council staffer]
Miscreants of the Mutai Mole Clan™ [partial list]
Richard Clarke
Sandy Burglar
John Deutch
Anthony Lake
Joe Wilson
Dana Priest
Bill Goddfellow [Priest's hubby]
Valerie Plame
John Dalton
Randy Beers
Susan Rice
Bob Bell
Bill Danvers
Anne Richard
Anne Witkowsky
Steve Andreasen
Daniel Benjamin
Steven Simon
ORGS:
Mary O McCarthy is the director of communications for
Fenton | Communications [Fidel Castro’s greatest “think tank”]: Check out their other clients!
sample:
Heinz Family Foundation
Pew Charitable Trusts
Turner Foundation
MoveOn.org
Arianna for Governor
Win Without War
Rock the Vote
Planned Parenthood Action Fund
George Soros media
International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission
United Nations Foundation
*
Here's another foundation our Mole™ is involved with.
Joyce Foundation
Director of Communications
Mary OÂ’Connell [she sure can communicate eh?]
*
org. affiliations:
>Win Without War
>Center for International Policy
>Policy Studies Network
>Fund for Peace
a few old and new fellow travelers
Lindsay Mattison
Orlando Letelier*
D. Gareth Porter aka Gary Porter
**************************
What were Mary O McCarthy motives?
Ego?
Dana priest and fellow travelers just stroked the classified intel from Mary O McCarthy for the sake of DemoKrap loyalty and agenda/ideological purposes?
*
or because she's a born Elitist?
"WE know better and what is best, because WE know what is in the National Interest peons, and what is SAFE to "leak" and you DON'T, so STFU!!!"?
*
or something more sinister?
*
regardless of motive, she's a traitor, a Benedict Arnold.
>>please feel free to add to the lists, and or criticize but be advised, I have killed before.. >)
Posted by: Rubin at April 23, 2006 10:49 PM (An3as)
23
I get your point - it's not about the constitution - it's about the politics.
But what's really interesting - it's about an issue (like so many of their's) that went absolutely nowhere in the first place.
Mary's part of a not very effective crew!
Posted by: hondo at April 24, 2006 06:05 AM (gdxQ2)
24
Love the ideologue, hate the ideology, eh Carlos? Well, at least you don't want to kill them all. So, if liberalism is AIDS, I guess that answers the question about whether you ever think liberals have been right about anything. Let me see if you still think it is AIDS given these liberal triumphs:
Liberals did the following:
1. destroyed the system of segregation and oppression under which thousands of blacks were killed and millions were denied the right to vote (liberals including Repub liberals)
2. Ended child labor in America, which many conservatives fought to preserve (read Hammer v. Dagenhart)
3. Removed communist influence from American labor unions in a long battle during the cold war
4. Fought for freedom of speech to be expanded, so that great works of literature like Ulysses and Tropic of Cancer could be enjoyed here as well as in Europe (most conservatives opposed that)
5. Expanded the rights of women, which many conservatives opposed.
6. Raised environmental standards, and environmental consciousness. Your air and water are cleaner thanks to liberals like John Chafee, Mo Udall, etc. More national parks, too. More hunting areas.
7. Raised the status of gays and lesbians, who prior to the modern era, often faced violence, legal discrimination, police abuse, and losing their children.
8. Invented the internet (OK, just kidding. Actually Gore never said that, but whatever)
9. Made cars safer in America, through crash standards, airbags, and seat belts (look at how many lives have been saved since 1965 by these changes alone--more than 500K--and opposed by conservatives every step of the way. Without liberals like Nader, this doesn't happen.)
10. Changed old age in America from a time of frequent poverty and uncovered medical costs to a time largely removed from those threats. Each advance of Soc Sec and Medicare was opposed by conservatives, except this drug benefit plan.
11. Funded at the national level science research that contributed to our continuing scientific dominance over the rest of the world. I really shouldn't give the credit solely to liberals on this one: Ike, post-Sputnik, played a key role in expanding the federal role in science and math education. It was necessary--some states were simply terrible at teaching science. Some still are.
Now, Carlos--there is a long list of liberal errors and excesses. I'm sure you know them by heart. But if you can look at this list, and say, nope, NONE of these are worthwhile, each of them is meaningless, liberalism is AIDS of the mind, I'll be surprised. I don't have a problem if you look at liberalism's errors and its virtues and say, overall, conservatism is better in most situations. I just don't think it is accurate to say that liberalism is a disease. it's a point of view. Sometimes it is right. Sometimes it is wrong. But by unleashing the discourse of virulent hatred, you weaken the country, which needs liberals, conservatives, and moderates to succeed.
Posted by: jd at April 24, 2006 09:08 AM (uT71O)
25
Oh, and these:
1. Women in the military.
2. Campaign finance disclosure (without liberal reforms, you would never know who took money from who. You and I probably hate limits, but everyone benefits from disclosure)
3. Breaking down anti-Semitism. It is seldom remembered that Jews faced widespread discrimination. It used to be legal, for example, for the seller of a home to forbid the buyer from ever selling to a black or a Jew. Using civil rights laws, liberals ended most closed country clubs and workplaces and universities and neighborhoods. My father and grandfather faced anti-Semitic prejudices that have been largely eliminated, thanks in great part to liberal reformers. They were opposed by conservatives, arguing property rights should triumph civil rights. Thank God liberals won in the battle against Anti-Semitism.
4. Integrated the armed forces. Liberals did this. Conservatives like Dick Russell opposed it. Everytime you turn on the TV and see our multiethnic fighting forces, thank Liberals.
5. Created a godless, abortion-laden, sodomizing America where children are taught witchcraft and homosexuality in the public schools, enviro-wackos stop all economic progress, the media demonizes Christians and conservatives, businesses are stolen from the private sector and nationalized, and socialism reigns! (oh, wait, that's their secret plan for victory, not an achievement...)
Posted by: jd at April 24, 2006 09:23 AM (uT71O)
26
jd,
My comparisons (unlike yours) hold water. Liberalism (as we know it today is actually Leftism) is a virus to Western societies in the same way AIDS is a virus to the human body. You see, in the same way AIDS weakens a body's immune system, allowing diseases to wreak havoc, so does Liberalism weaken societies by creating social dysfunction within that society and weakening a nation's resolve against external threats. It's a nation killer. A virus. Western civilization is seriously threatened by this disease. And people who subscribe to the Leftist/Liberal worldview are like carriers. They should be treated as such. They should politically quarantined.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 24, 2006 10:04 AM (8e/V4)
27
Does that mean that you agree with conservatives on all the points I raised? Obviously, few conservatives today advocate segregation, but many did then, or at least tolerance of Southern rights to segregate/discriminate. If you disagree with segregation, then don't you have to concede that America needs liberalism, despite its many errors, to correct conservatism when it goes wrong? A nation of one ideology is a nation doomed. A nation of open debate, where no view is "quarantined" (how are you going to make that happen, incidentally) is what we need to be.
I don't see you claiming that any specific liberal policy leads to the dangers you articulate. If I were to sum up modern American liberalism, I would say this: A belief in individual freedom, tempered by the belief that an active government is often necessary to help individuals remain free and to help them realize their potential, as well as preserve certain communal goods such as the environment and public education.
American conservatism: a belief in individual freedom, tempered by the belief that liberty must not be allowed to devolve into license, in which individuals indulge their freedom in negative ways (sexual licentiousness, hedonism generally).
There are also areas where the tendency of liberals and conservatives differ on a continuum; for example liberals tend to be more wary of free trade's cost to average Americans (although some paleos like Buchanan are at least as sensitive), and conservatives tend to be far more wary of international organizations and treaties. Also, while both sides frequently favor market solutions, and America under liberals and conservatives has some of the lowest national taxes in the industrialized world, it is true that conservatives tend to favor market solutions more than liberals. Conservatives are also far more skeptical of government's ability to socially engineer, while liberals are more sensitive to the needs of historically oppressed groups.
Where is the disease requiring quarantine in that typology? I'm not saying you should agree with liberalism, but to talk about it as if it were a deadly pathogen is very damaging to our country, and our unity in national tasks like defeating terrorism. Remember that many liberals are fighting for your freedom, every day. Don't insult them by saying they suffer from mental illness.
Posted by: jd at April 24, 2006 10:17 AM (uT71O)
28
Why not, instead of characterizing liberalism as an evil virus, say that it is an ideology that you frequently disagree with, that sometimes has the right answer on questions of public policy, and certainly deserves a place in American politics?
For example, I think farm subsidies are an atrocious example of rent-seeking. I oppose all farm subsidies and have since I first examined the question. They take government money, cause uneconomic activities, give money to folks far wealthier than the national average who are politically connected, artificially make food more expensive for those who are at the lowest income levels, and also impoverish third world farmers, while weakening the world's overall commitment to free trade. When conservatives in 1995 passed the "Freedom to Farm" act, I was ecstatic--finally, someone has the balls to rapidly phase out farm subsidies. It was a great idea, and I embraced it. Good ideas come from both parties, and both ideologies. we need both.
(Over time, of course, most conservatives have hypocritically and repeatedly endorsed increases in farm subsidies, making this law a dead one. Sad.)
Posted by: jd at April 24, 2006 10:26 AM (uT71O)
29
jd,
I subscribe to conservatism as it exists today, not 50 years ago. 50 years ago I would have called myself a Liberal because back then there was still a difference between Liberalism and Leftism. No longer. Times have changed, and so has conseravatism. That's why talking about Southern segregation in the past is irrelevant to what I see happenning in the world today, and therefore irrelevant to my being a conservative.
Liberalism (read Leftism) is not something I can merely disagree with and leave it at that like I would scientology or mormonism. Liberalism, like radical islam, actually threatens our civilization. We fought a long hard Cold War against the USSR. Now that failed ideology of America hatred has weaseled its way into America through useful idiot Liberals.
Let me give you an example. My brother, your classic useful idiot Liberal, is in favor of complete amnesty for all immigrants and "erasing all borders." He thinks his views make him a "good guy." What he doesn't know is that one of the goals of Marxism is to make the nation-state obsolete. When I told my useful idiot brother that he is expousing Marxist views, he shrugged his shoulders and ignored me. My brother is an example of how Marxism has weaseled its way into modern Liberalism. Liberals expouse Marxism without even knowing it, and ironically they fancy themselves the "intellectuals" amongst us. On the contrary, most of them are quite ignorant.
That doesn't mean I want to kill Liberals, but rather I believe in completely deligitimizing Liberalism as an ideology and worldview. Liberal (read Leftist) activists are not ignorant however. They KNOW what they're up to. But they're stealthy about it. Leftism requires stealth, just like a disease.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 24, 2006 10:47 AM (8e/V4)
30
Interesting post. But merely because something is espoused by two ideologies does not make them the same. For example, many classical economists and libertarians advocate the entirely free flow of labor over international borders, from conservative economic principles. By your logic, they are Marxists...Your brother isn't unknowingly espousing Marxist views. His views merely coincide with one of theirs--and with libertarians. I think you owe your brother an apology, first for calling him a Marxist and then for thinking him igorant in not seeing that.
Posted by: jd at April 24, 2006 10:50 AM (uT71O)
31
jd,
there is a difference between the free flow of goods vs erasing all borders.
Useful Libidiots are not free marketeers, they are primarily interested in undermining American as it is currently constituted, i.e., capitalist, white, Western. One activist called amnesty for immigrants the "browning of America." To him it's about race. To my Libidiot brother it's about "the poor".
Whatever the reason, Libidiots are dangerous morons, and they are UNAMERICAN. period.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 24, 2006 11:02 AM (8e/V4)
32
I just don't think blanket statements about a sizable percentage of your fellow Americans does anything but hurt this country in the war on terror. Those you call idiots and haters of America are actually your allies in the war against those who hate us. Liberals work at CIA, DOD, NSA, State, DEA, and ICE, etc. Liberals get up every day, and work to preserve your freedom, as conservatives and moderates do as well. Conservatives have no monopoly on morality or accuracy or honesty. Sometimes liberals have the right solutions, and unless we as a country are open to many ideologies, we will not succeed.
Oh, one more key difference. Conservatives tend to, in the Burkean sense, be skeptical of new ideas. While acknowledging whatever flaws there may be in existing social structures, they are cautious towards new ideas, because tradition itself has a value. (if it survived, it must have some merit, is a nice encapsulation of this idea) This sometimes makes them less open to necessary change. Liberals, by contrast, are often overly critical of tradition, seeing only the flaws, and not the virtues, of the existing order. This difference, perhaps more than any other, illustrates why we need both perspectives. Conservatives are the necessary watchdogs on the future, asking piercing questions about proposed reforms. Liberals are the necessary critics of that which is, proposing better ways of doing things.
Think the RFK quote: some men look at things as they are, and ask "why"? I dream things that never were, and ask, "why not"?
Dreaming things that never were sometimes leads to proposing things that never will be or should be. That's where conservatives step in.
Posted by: jd at April 24, 2006 01:45 PM (aqTJB)
33
>>>Conservatives are the necessary watchdogs on the future, asking piercing questions about proposed reforms. Liberals are the necessary critics of that which is, proposing better ways of doing things.
That's an interesting way of putting it. Of course, that is an idealized view. Today's Libs (read Leftists) aren't interested in "reforming" the status quo, but in toppling it.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 24, 2006 03:25 PM (paKD6)
34
You seem to have confused liberals and leftists with the revolutionary workers party. I know very few liberals who want to "topple" anything. The bumper sticker "regime change begins at home" merely means kicking out Bush. It doesn't mean revoking capitalism or radically changing our government.
Posted by: jd at April 24, 2006 09:55 PM (uT71O)
35
I think Carlos' point is that many of today's liberals have sidled up to the leftists. They see conservatives as a common enemy. Politics has made stranger bedfellows. The political climate as a whole in this country has drifted to the left over the many decades and some find that alarming. I do. It has brought us to the point where socialsim (communism light if you will) is an acceptable state.
Conservatives still believe in equal opportunity rather than the pervasive "equality of outcome" that is infecting our society. The victim mentality, too, is a real problem. Racism is at an all time low yet, to hear some talk you'd think we still have slaves on the auction block in the town square. Class warfare abounds as well without addressing why some do not achieve the heights others do.
And jd, I don't know what you call yourself, but I consider myself right of center. What you have to consider is the use of terms. Liberalism in its classic sense is good. However, when a group or individual who adopt leftist ideals like socialism, marxism and communism call themselves "liberals" they've taken the term to an extent that it was never meant to describe. It's why I use terms like "far-left" or "leftist". Some people still understand what "liberal" means and take offense when others use the term derogatorily. So you have to understand that when most people here use "liberal" they refer to those who have adopted the term merely to soften their leftist slants or have actually abandoned the good aspects of liberalism for leftism. I am not offended because I know to whom they refer. Just fifty years ago I might have been labeled as bordering on communism for my own views.
So while you may take offense at the "sweeping statements" just keep that in mind. If any of us here talk about "liberals", or any group for that matter, and we don't use the proper term to assauge someone's sensibilities it's because no matter what we say, someone's going to get offended. I myself have had to write umpteen paragraphs here just to get one simple point across so I don't "offend" anyone.
These guys here, Carlos, Joe, Maxie, etc. are not the monsters or unreasonable people you might think they are and if one does not take into consideration that this is a comment section where words are typed and you can't see their eyebrows or smile, well then, what we get is this nitpicking. Yes, some things are said merely for their shock value. I just slide past them to get to the real intellectual meat.
Posted by: Oyster at April 25, 2006 05:59 AM (YudAC)
36
Oyster--smartest thing posted here in weeks. Thanks. I still don't think there are many "liberals" in terms of Howard Dean, Harry Reid, or even Pelosi who should be called "socialists" or radicals. If Dean has won the presidency in 2004, what would be different? We might be out of Iraq, granted, and our overall foreign policy would be different in some ways, but we would still be a capitalist country, with the largest military in the world. We would still have a lower tax burden than almost any Western European country. Dean would probably be moving on health insurance along Mass. lines, and gay equality would be advanced (say, gays in the military, which a majority of Americans favor). Pro-choice people would have been put on the Supreme Court, but not left wing radicals from Yale. More like corporate moderates like Stephen Breyer (mod Dems and con Reps wouldn't let a true left judge through the senate...not even Ginsberg is a legal realist). Truth is, if you oppose bureaucracy in health care, you should hate the current system--we spend 30% of our health spending on paper pushing, whereas it average 10% in W. Europe.
So if Howard Dean isn't some socialist radical (he was actually a very moderate gov of Vermont, who cut taxes and balanced budgets), then where are these radical socialists who have hijacked the Dem party?
I do appreciate your explanation of bombast, and I'm not trying to be a caricature of some super-sensitive PC asshole. When people say kill all the liberals, or liberalism is a mental illness, though, and deny that they are being bombastic or humorous...hey, I'm going to challenge that. The chappaquiddick jokes and the Clintoon references..I do let those go. Finally, if you can put this aside to get to the intellectual meat here, I hope you'll extend the same courtesy to those you disagree with. If you can swim through posts that call Bush Hitler to find the "intellectual meat" (and there often is some) then that's great.
Posted by: jd at April 26, 2006 10:39 AM (g/1zI)
37
Well done!
Posted by: Roy at June 22, 2006 10:26 PM (6nnY9)
38
Great work!
Posted by: Nick at June 22, 2006 10:52 PM (vVzaz)
39
Thank you!
Posted by: Mary at June 23, 2006 05:37 PM (fuzLo)
40
Thank you!
Posted by: Nicole at June 23, 2006 05:50 PM (aMtTL)
41
Thank you!
Posted by: Karen at June 23, 2006 05:54 PM (ijgPP)
42
Well done!
Posted by: Sally at June 24, 2006 03:49 PM (ee2lJ)
43
Well done!
Posted by: Adam at June 24, 2006 03:53 PM (APRav)
44
Thank you!
Posted by: Glen at June 25, 2006 04:13 PM (zeQ55)
45
Great work!
Posted by: Ann at June 25, 2006 04:18 PM (ZUixb)
46
Great work!
Posted by: Gloria at June 25, 2006 04:21 PM (ZrOV5)
47
Well done!
Posted by: William at June 25, 2006 04:24 PM (UA2CO)
48
Well done!
Posted by: Betty at June 25, 2006 04:26 PM (o6ULF)
49
Thank you!
Posted by: Veronica at June 27, 2006 04:15 PM (O9iO5)
50
Good design!
Posted by: Naomi at June 27, 2006 04:18 PM (SuTDN)
51
Thank you!
Posted by: Mary at June 27, 2006 04:21 PM (dWWuj)
52
Great work!
Posted by: Joy at June 28, 2006 03:13 PM (EX2eW)
53
Well done!
Posted by: Nicole at June 28, 2006 03:16 PM (HhDrB)
54
Great work!
Posted by: Rachel at June 28, 2006 03:21 PM (ZUixb)
55
Great work!
Posted by: Mike at June 28, 2006 03:24 PM (ytPY1)
56
Thank you!
Posted by: Lee at June 29, 2006 08:06 PM (gyjAi)
57
Great work!
Posted by: Angie at June 29, 2006 08:11 PM (az8PD)
58
Well done!
Posted by: Troy at June 29, 2006 08:18 PM (feUU/)
59
Well done!
Posted by: Gina at June 29, 2006 08:21 PM (gyjAi)
60
Good design!
Posted by: Kathy at June 30, 2006 07:38 AM (o4nb6)
61
Great work!
Posted by: Nicole at June 30, 2006 03:55 PM (WjteZ)
62
Great work!
Posted by: Karl at June 30, 2006 04:01 PM (D9VMc)
57kb generated in CPU 0.0267, elapsed 0.1539 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.1394 seconds, 311 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
119 queries taking 0.1394 seconds, 311 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
