mypetjawa v. 2.0 (beta) "<i>Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to ev

March 31, 2006

ABC Producer Suspended Over Email: 'Bush makes me sick.' (Updated)

ABC weekend Good Morning America producer John Green (previous post here) has reportedly been suspended for a month by ABC. From the New York Observer:

ABC News executives have suspended Weekend Good Morning America executive producer John Green for a month, after two politically charged personal e-mails Green sent to a colleague were leaked to the press, according to two network sources.

Click here to see memo.

The exposure of Green's gross bias went virtually unreported by the mainstream media.

Update: protein wisdom notes that another Green memo describes Green's distaste for Madeleine Albright because she has "Jew shame".

Meanwhile, the mainstream media have remained silent on the original memo story and the decision to suspend Green, which was made, conveniently, on a Friday in order to minimize its impact in the standard news cycle. ABC needn't have bothered; their buddies are covering for them just fine.

Via the Drudge Report.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 05:27 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 177 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Is that with or without pay? If they're just giving him a bonus month vacation, that would make me sick.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at March 31, 2006 06:08 PM (DdRjH)

2 He was set up by KKKarl Rove and/or the Hellibacon/Zionist/Neocon/Space Alien cabal. Da JOOOOooooooooOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooozzz got 'im!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 31, 2006 07:06 PM (0yYS2)

3 hahaha! another one bites the dust.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 31, 2006 07:15 PM (8e/V4)

4 You know, I don't care that the guy thinks this or that he sent personal e-mails to that effect. It's not a first amendment issue--his employer is private--but I've sent politically charged personal e-mails from work and I wouldn't expect to get fired for that. I do care about biased news coverage. Let the guy work, just be honest about his biases and quit pretending that ABC is objective.

Posted by: See-Dubya at March 31, 2006 07:26 PM (Zozmz)

5 >>>Let the guy work, just be honest about his biases and quit pretending that ABC is objective. I see your point. By firing him ABC gets to pretend they're objective even though they aren't. They'll only replace him with another one just like him.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 31, 2006 07:32 PM (8e/V4)

6 As far as I know, they didn't fire him; they suspended him for a month. What's more telling, and chilling, is the near total MSM news blackout on the memo and the suspension.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 31, 2006 08:54 PM (RHG+K)

7 I like to look at this as more testimony to the power of the Internet, with no consensus control to silence real news.

Posted by: Javapuke at March 31, 2006 11:37 PM (bt+Dw)

8 Were the emails sent through his work account? That would make a difference. Otherwise, I'm with C Dub. If they'd all just qust quit pretending... And I'm still wondering why Jews largely remain in the Democratic Party when most of the anti-semitism we hear of comes from that party.

Posted by: Oyster at April 01, 2006 06:04 AM (YudAC)

9 Oyster, What an interesting comment about Jews and the Democrat Party! Might it be that, in general terms, Republicans do not support the Bill of Rights that protects people from an abusive government? (They may have experience in that regard.) (Today being April Fools Day, it is difficult to know when one's leg is being pulled... or not)

Posted by: Dale at April 01, 2006 06:14 AM (bmPgK)

10 "...Republicans do not support the Bill of Rights that protects people from an abusive government..." What? Hey everyone, here's a liberal knock-knock joke. Knock-knock! Who's there? BUSHISHITLER! Bushishitler who? YEAAARGH!!!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 01, 2006 06:45 AM (0yYS2)

11 "Might it be that, in general terms, Republicans do not support the Bill of Rights that protects people from an abusive government?" Even if such a statement were true, what the heck does it have to do with mine?

Posted by: Oyster at April 01, 2006 07:26 AM (YudAC)

12 ABC News its still the Awful Broadcasting Company

Posted by: sandpiper at April 01, 2006 08:52 AM (uo3LX)

13 Let's see. Just for the moment I am a Jew. Hey! I'm rich. Ok, not really, but here we go. Conversation overheard between me and my Jewish neighbor who is a Democrat: "Uh, Aaron, the Democrats are now saying that the Jews are the ones at fault in Palestine, and if we would just surrender Israel and let the Palis take over, they would be so kind and loving toward us, especially to our women." "The Democrats said that. And they now call us Zionists and obstructionists and xenophobic. But, the Democrats promise to protect us from the evil Republicans. You know, the evil party that supports Israel and fights terror. And when you talk to al-Queda and other terrorists in the ME like Hamas and Hezbollah, they listen in without telling you. Now this is very bad, especially for the terrorists and their enablers. I don't know, Joseph, I've been a Democrat all my life, and just because they have become a party of anti-Americanism and pro-terror is no reason to leave now." "Ok, Aaron, I see your logic. The Democrats have turned against us, but hey, they are sure to need us sometime in the future, so ride that jackass to the bitter end."

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 01, 2006 09:22 AM (rUyw4)

14 Oyster, there are basically two factions of Jews; those who love America and support Israel, and those who do not. There are a few who love America and do not support Israel, but I have met few of these. I used to think the divide was along secular and religious lines, but now, having met many of both persuasions and read many works from both sides, I see it goes deeper and is much more complex, but the fact remains that there are many in the echelons of power in this country, Mayor Bloomberg of New York, for example, who seem to feel that they should side with muslims who want to kill them rather than with Americans, (read: Evil Whitey), who have been their only champions for the last half-century. My short answer is this: I don't trust anyone anymore, because such inexplicable behavior of taking sides with a declared enemy, or known traitors, is either indication of insanity, stupidity, or ulterior motives. Our own president refuses to do his job, defends the enemy's doctrine while pretending to fight them, and muslims and illegal aliens are still flooding into our country with the one goal of taking over. Nero was more attentive to his duties than Bush. At this rate, America will be unlivable in a few years, but we have no place else to go, so we must choose to fight, or submit and lose our country. I choose to fight, even if it means fighting against our own government, which it looks like will be the case, since they seem to be thoroughly infiltrated by communists, muslims, and appeasers.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 03, 2006 06:37 AM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 26, 2006

NBC Producer Reamed at Rahman Rally

NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell's producer was given some basic instruction in humanity by conservative commentator Cam Edwards Friday. Mitchell's producer showed up at a rally for Adbul Rahman, the Afghan facing death for leaving Islam, outside the Afghan embassy in Washington, D.C. The producer was apparently trying to incite anti-Bush quotes from the protesters.

At some point, Edwards gave him an earful that probably won't make the Nightly News, as mainstream media types are inordinately averse to broadcasting uncomplimentary opinions of themselves. Even richly deserved uncomplimentary opinions. more...

Posted by: Bluto at 12:08 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 211 words, total size 2 kb.

March 24, 2006

Olbermann: ABC Exec Memo a Rovian Plot

Newsbusters has links to video of MSNBC's Keith Olbermann claiming that the White House is responsible for "leaking" an email, posted on The Drudge Report yesterday, in which ABC executive John Green says that the President makes him "sick", and that he might "puke".

Olbermann offered no evidence for his charge that the email had been leaked by the Administration, and referred to Matt Drudge as "infamous" and "deplorable". Olbermann didn't explain why, if his unsupported supposition were true, it would be a bad thing for the White House to seek to publicize the email, which implies a diseased and grossly biased corporate culture at one of the companies charged with using America's airwaves in the public interest.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 12:35 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 139 words, total size 1 kb.

March 23, 2006

Gray Lady Blows it Again

The eleventy-seven layers of editors at the New York Times have screwed the pooch once more (previous outrageous boner here).

From Editor & Publisher [emphasis added]:

NEW YORK For the second time in less than a week, The New York Times today admitted to a serious error in a story. On Saturday it said it had misidentified a man featured in the iconic "hooded inmate" photograph from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Today it discloses that a woman it profiled on March 8 is not, in fact, a victim of Hurricane Katrina--and was arrested for fraud and grand larceny yesterday.
As it did in the Abu Ghraib mistake, the Times ran an editors' note on page 2 of its front section, along with a lengthy news article (this time on the front page of Section B). Again mirroring the Abu Ghraib episode, the newspaper revealed a surprising and inexplicable lapse in fact-checking on the part of a reporter and/or editor.

It's neither surprising nor inexplicable, it's simply one of the pitfalls of creating and slanting stories for the purpose of damaging the Bush administration.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto and Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: Bluto at 12:37 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 203 words, total size 2 kb.

1 haha! Their bushitler hatred is killing them. BDS.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 23, 2006 01:32 PM (8e/V4)

2 The guy who wrote the original article, Nicholas Confessore, was the same person who later blamed the Times for not checking thoroughly enough into her story? What a crock!

Posted by: Oyster at March 23, 2006 01:44 PM (g9UJq)

3 ABC NEWS EXEC: 'BUSH MAKES ME SICK'; E-MAIL REVEALED A top producer at ABC NEWS declared "Bush makes me sick" in an email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT. John Green, currently executive producer of the weekend edition of GOOD MORNING AMERICA, unloaded on the president in an ABC company email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT. "If he uses the 'mixed messages' line one more time, I'm going to puke," Green complained. The blunt comments by Green, along with other emails obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT, further reveal the inner workings of the nation's news outlets. A friend of Green's at ABC says Green is mortified by the email. "John feels so badly about this email. He is a straight shooter and great producer who is always fair. That said, he deeply regrets the sentiment expressed in the email and the embarrassment it causes ABC News." Developing... http://www.drudgereport.com/flash9ab.htm

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 23, 2006 01:51 PM (8e/V4)

4 Another "smoking gun" on media bias? How many more actual non-forged documents will it take?

Posted by: Chief RZ at March 23, 2006 02:16 PM (iNTGz)

5 Where is John Ryan and the noise? Surely they can explain this "mistake" on the part of the NYT. Surely!

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 23, 2006 03:16 PM (rUyw4)

6 you dumb neo con sheep,everything charlie sheen said is the truth,silverstein admitted they "pulled"the building.a demolition takes weeks to plan for,not an hour!wake up, you sheep will beleive anthing!!!

Posted by: dale at March 23, 2006 03:22 PM (fM9Xc)

7 Begs the question -- who can trust anything you read in their newspaper. Do you think their stock price will be zero before Bush retires? They announced earnings reduction and revenue shortfall just yesterday and their bonds are teetering on junk. Gonna be close. Doubt they will figure out what the problem is.

Posted by: 10ksnooker at March 23, 2006 03:34 PM (7evkT)

8 Dale forgot his medication again.

Posted by: Oyster at March 23, 2006 03:39 PM (MkwVi)

9 >>>everything charlie sheen said is the truth, how sad.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 23, 2006 03:58 PM (8e/V4)

10 DPB: I read the story and the retraction...you have to look pretty hard to find the "creating and slanting stories for the purpose of damaging the Bush administration" angle to it. Sounds to me like lazy journalism on a routine Katrina story -- unless every story written about a Katrina victim has no news value and is merely another attempt to damage the administration of course.

Posted by: Eric at March 23, 2006 04:13 PM (UHKaK)

11 dale, how would you be in a position to know these things? Just curious.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 23, 2006 04:20 PM (rUyw4)

12 Eric, why do you think NBC has carried a Katrina story every night since the hurricane, that's what, more than six months of spots? Certainly their viewers are tired of it, so there must be another purpose. I wonder what that could be?

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 23, 2006 04:41 PM (RHG+K)

13 Isn't it obvious JJ? Dale gets secret coded messages through his tinfoil hat.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 23, 2006 06:31 PM (0yYS2)

14 In Morse Code, IM, or in the super secret alien script?

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 23, 2006 07:12 PM (rUyw4)

15 The DaVinci code, most likely.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 24, 2006 06:11 AM (0yYS2)

16 DPB;My reference was to the Times story, don't really watch NBC so can't really comment. But isn't NBC a holding of GE, a major vendor to the War? Why would they cut their own throats with the admin ... unless someone is still listening?

Posted by: Eric at March 24, 2006 08:39 AM (UHKaK)

17 Eric, the news division operates on its own; it doesn't receive stories from above. Leftward bias in the mainstream media isn't decided at the corporate level, it's a soft conspiracy that continues because of a lack of ideological diversity at every level of journalism. Look at the outrage among liberals because Fox tries to be politically neutral. It's as if one of THOSE families were buying a house in an all-white neighborhod.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 24, 2006 09:01 AM (RHG+K)

18 The NEW YORK TIME is like the horns of a steer A POINT HERE A POINT THERE AND A LOT OF BULL IN BETWEEN

Posted by: sandpiper at March 24, 2006 09:44 AM (nMpEK)

19 DPB; That's probably where you and I differ: ideology has no place in journalism, left or right. And insisting upon more of a rightward slant to combat the perceptions of a leftward one does more to damage journalism than it does to "balance" it. Balance? What about truth? Your model implicitly agrees there are no objective truths, merely differing agenda-driven viewpoints. Can any kind of truth ever be derived from such a system? If we end up with the kind of news that lobs televised softballs to their ideological counterparts in the government, but holds the feet of the other guys to the fire, that's not news. That's PR.

Posted by: Eric at March 24, 2006 10:11 AM (UHKaK)

20 Eric, you and I certainly agree that the ideal journalist ignores ideology when reporting, however, that's not how it works now in practice. In fact, most journalism schools acknowledge bias, though it isn't called that. That's why I've posted numerous times on the "evolution" of modern journalism: from interpretive reporting, which begat advocacy journalism, which is begetting agenda journalism, which is being legitmized by supposed experts in the field. See the blog PressThink, written by a journalism professor, which often plays with the idea of bias as a good thing in journalism. Since truly professional, unbiased journalism seems unattainable in today's America, we must ensure, at least, a healthy balance of ideology. Otherwise we're left with the way things were since Vietnam - with a journalistic elite who self-identify as "progressive" deciding what is news and how that news will be presented. Much of talk radio and half of the blogosphere are challenging this de facto monopoly.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 24, 2006 11:58 AM (RHG+K)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 18, 2006

When the Agenda Hits the Fan

The headline fairly drips with that patented New York Times air of moral superiority: Symbol of Abu Ghraib Seeks to Spare Others His Nightmare, and the copy is written in their smarmy and lugubrious the-evil-that-we-do style: more...

Posted by: Bluto at 10:22 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 290 words, total size 2 kb.

1 WOOMP there it is.. ~~The Newspaper of Record~~ The Newspaper of smarmy lugubrious evil-that-we-do style ht. pet jawas

Posted by: Rubin at March 18, 2006 10:58 AM (BrVW0)

2 For 86 years the NYT has not hesitated to print anything thay may make America or American ideals seem bad. They care not if it is a lie as long as it defames what America stands for. This is just one example of thousands of such fabrications. The all time best happened 70 years ago when they ran a series of fabrications about how great and loving ol Joe was. Got an America hating Pulitzer for them. These "news" stories have all been proved to be just stories since the fall aof the USSR. But the NYT did not care 70 years ago and do not care in 06. Anything to hurt America and Get Americans killed is front page "news" for the NYT; and has been since Woody was President. Give them credit for a consistent policy the last 86 years.

Posted by: Joe macDlugal at March 18, 2006 05:00 PM (2vpLj)

3 The NYT should be burned to the ground with all aboard, and in its place a monument erected to the millions who have died at the hands of murderers whose acts were shielded and excused by its lies.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 19, 2006 07:13 AM (0yYS2)

4 Do you support the actions of our troops at Abu Gharaib? The NYT is right about this one. There should be enough shame about Abu Gharaib for all Americans.

Posted by: Robert at March 19, 2006 03:15 PM (DY+i6)

5 Robert: Since the troops at Abu Ghraib who committed crimes were a tiny percentage of the total, and those were investigated and punished, of course I support the troops at Abu Ghraib, you repugnant weasel. The treasonous surrender monkeys at the Gray Lady have admitted that they were not right, so your comment makes sense only to imbecilic partisan Bush-haters who long for America's defeat...such as yourself.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 19, 2006 03:57 PM (RHG+K)

6 When the time comes, the best part about hanging liberals and muslims will not be the one on the rope, kicking and turning purple, but watching those in line as they ponder their fate. I pray that time comes soon.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 19, 2006 06:45 PM (0yYS2)

7 Improbulus Maximus, well said, I like the purple part.

Posted by: Rubin at March 19, 2006 07:16 PM (zvCwC)

8 Thanks Rubin. I should have written; ...as they ponder their fate, along with their sins. As we all know, the wages of sin is death.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 20, 2006 06:02 AM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 15, 2006

Botched Report From CBS Draws Fire of Danish Journalist

Samuel Rachin, a distinguished Danish journalist who follows the Old School (agendas are for meetings, not journalists) has blasted Bob Simon of CBS for his hatchet job on Denmark's Mohammed cartoon incident:

This kind of journalism does not have much in common with the tradition of Ed R. Murrow or what his associate, Fred Friendly, taught me at the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University when I took my degree there in the late 70ies. The snide asides and sarcasm that permeated the narrative do not mix with the high quality journalism I have learned to expect from 60 Minutes. What we got was a presentation so biased, distorted and corrupted by so many inaccuracies and innuendos that it was impossible to recognize Denmark. I am sorry to say it, but it is shameful for the profession that both Bob Simon and I belong to.

No big surprises here for Americans accustomed to what passes for reporting at the network of Dan Rather.

Of course, Simon may have been simply trying to excuse the cowardice of the American mainstream media, who have meekly allowed themselves to be censored by the Islamist movement.

Via The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto and Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: Bluto at 02:15 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 225 words, total size 2 kb.

March 10, 2006

Reuters Isn't Biased

This picture of the Vice President under a "Retire" banner just happened by accident. And none of the eleventy-seven standard MSM editors noticed it by accident. Then it went out over the Reuters wire by accident. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Via the Drudge Report.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto and Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: Bluto at 01:44 AM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I'm glad Drudge picked up on it with his circulation. Its something small but does speak a thousand words about Reuters, propaganda and their untrustworthyness. Frankly its just plain stupid.

Posted by: Javapuke at March 10, 2006 04:16 AM (lxHRs)

2 Amazing how they "accidentally" framed the word perfectly within the frame, and how they cut off the end of "retire" to fit it in there. Nice try, al-Reuters. Terrorist sympathizers and apologists would naturally want The Cheney to retire.

Posted by: Good Lt at March 10, 2006 05:19 AM (yT+NK)

3 This not long after the infamous "X". Who do they think they're kidding?

Posted by: Oyster at March 10, 2006 05:45 AM (YudAC)

4 Their tactics are childlike in their sophistication, and can only have effect on minds which are decidedly not adult, which means that they not only hope, but believe, that most Americans are stupid enough to buy their crap.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 10, 2006 07:45 AM (0yYS2)

5 It's just an "isolated incident."

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 10, 2006 08:53 AM (8e/V4)

6 Wow...who ever heard of editorializing through imagery? http://www.stewartsynopsis.com/white_global_identity_within_the.htm http://browndailysqueal.com/archives/week_2004_09_19.html

Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 10, 2006 09:24 AM (K5Ko+)

7 >>>who ever heard of editorializing through imagery? It's not the job of news reporters to editorialize. It's their job to report the facts. To the extent they do editorialize, they're falling down on the job. That's the MSM for you, bunch of incompetents Liberal who are more interested in "making a difference" then in doing their job.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 10, 2006 09:49 AM (8e/V4)

8 Noise's brother JD is on my site saying that it's just a random event and the MSM are actually not biased in the least. It's hard to deal with such delusional people.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 10, 2006 10:06 AM (RHG+K)

9 Bluto: I am pointing out that it IS editorializing... and that it has been going on for quite some time.

Posted by: Background Noise at March 10, 2006 10:42 AM (jsv7b)

10 Wow, we finally agree on something! See? There's hope.

Posted by: Oyster at March 10, 2006 10:56 AM (rf0W8)

11 noise, yes we know it's editorializing. It's also called bias. Such bias should be restricted to the Op/Ed section like it used to be. Not anymore though. Too many journalists want to "make a difference." Stupid ass Liberals disguising editoraliazing as straight news = MSM.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 10, 2006 11:19 AM (8e/V4)

12 Have you all lost your sense of humor entirely? Is it surgically removed when you join the The Conspiracy(tm)? 5 stars. Very funny, and also futile flailings, as is all the MSM can do these days.

Posted by: MiB at March 10, 2006 12:10 PM (VeYWn)

13 this man should do more than retire.Every decision emanting from this white house has been made by this man,an insider in the carlyle group and a member of the New american century or whatever,the group that said they needed a new "pearl harbor"to solidfy their goals.As a result,Bush is at the lowest point hes ever been in the polls.But do you think he cares?as long as the Carlyle gruop is raking in billions in defense money from this war and other deals,Bush is as happy as a lark!!

Posted by: dale at March 10, 2006 09:33 PM (bCVqJ)

14 So dale, do you think Cheney and the Carlyle Group cooked up 9/11 just so they could rake in all those war profits? I'll bet they sold their airline stock short on 9/10! Those bastards!

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 11, 2006 12:35 AM (RHG+K)

15 Dale, you forgot to mention that he is the global master of the space-alien/zionist cabal that is slowly enslaving us with flouridated drinking water. DON'T DRINK THE WATER!!!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 11, 2006 12:54 AM (0yYS2)

16 3 things that are a fact my friends: 1.Bushes brother was running security for the world trade centers on 911 2.cheney told Norad to stand down as the planes were hijacked 3.the owner of the world trade center himself told the media that they "pulled the building"that day,implying a controlled demolition. these are the facts my friends,not a paranoid conspiracy theory,and please just the facts!!

Posted by: dale at March 11, 2006 11:22 AM (HBymQ)

17 dale: one of the NORAD officers, a major at the time, now a lt. colonel, on duty that day happens to be a member of my Tae Kwon Do dojang. Your "fact number 2" is not a fact. The simple truth is that there was neither the time nor the resources in place to react to what was at the time an unprecedented situation. The idea of a "controlled demolition" has been so thoroughly debunked that only a few loons and the Fwench lend the idea any credence. There's a link to pre-manufactured tinfoil beanies somewhere. I'll try to locate it for you.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 11, 2006 11:30 AM (RHG+K)

18 If I hear the words "controlled demolition", "conspiracy" and "9/11" in the same sentence one more time ..... Dale, get a life. 1) Have you forgotten the planes? The collapse of the twin towers began from exactly the point where the planes hit. They were not "pulled". 2) Bush's brother sat on the board of the company that provided electronic security. How is that equated to "running the security"? 3) The "pulled" comment was related to building 7. Yes, it's possible (and it seems likely) they rigged it from the bottom to "pull" it because they said they said it was futile to try to get the fire under control. If that's in fact what happened, it sounds like a smart move to me. And it came down AFTER it had been completely evacuated. How does this equate to a government conspiracy to kill 3,000 Americans? I won't even address your NORAD implication.

Posted by: Oyster at March 11, 2006 12:25 PM (YudAC)

19 The one who should realy retire in TED KENNEDY its about that fool resigned and let a better qualified person take over

Posted by: sandpiper at March 11, 2006 01:55 PM (qMAo+)

20 you say your friend said there wasnt the time or resources to react,very interesting my friend considering they were doing drills in the weeks leading up to 9-11 for that very same scenario,planes flying into buildings.of course bush and rice said they never expected terrorist to fly planes into buildings,hah!! a few more facts 1.silverstein is on video saying they pulled the building.it takes weeks to prepare for a demolition,not hours. 2.actual recorded transcripts from the fireman going up the towers showed they heard explosions going off all over the buildings,I have heard these myself 3.no less an expert than Bin Laden himself said 3-4 weeks after the event that he "did not order these attacks".

Posted by: dale at March 11, 2006 07:01 PM (XwnJS)

21 dale, you've made ten wild, unsupported assertions in positing a conspiracy that would have to include thousands of people in all branches of the military, scores of elected officials at the municipal, state, and federal levels, scores of first responders, scores of airline personnel from competing airlines, air traffic controllers and their supervisors, unnamed private demolition company employees... dale, if they're this well organized, how come they haven't killed you for spilling the beans? Is your last name Gribble? Please consult your local mental health professional.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 11, 2006 09:30 PM (RHG+K)

22 Dale, you might want to modify the dosage just a touch...

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 12, 2006 07:48 AM (0yYS2)

23 It only takes a few at the very top to pull something off like this you neo-con sheep,flying a couple planes into a building could be pulled off so easy its incredible.what are you,so brainwashed by fox news you beleive anything these braindead morons cook up.how much money do these greedy bastards need,my god,just look at Iraq,a complete and utter failure,yet cheney still sticks to his theory 911 was connected to iraq and there were weapons of mass destruction.Ask cheney to turn over the spreadsheets of the incredible profits halliburton is raking in at the same time some poor marine said he was billed for his own body armour!absolutely shameful,you'll beleive anything!!

Posted by: dlae at March 12, 2006 08:37 AM (6IZ/T)

24 Damn. Now that dale has invoked a Word of Power, (Fox News), all our zionist mind control devices are useless against his magic tinfoil helmet. We are vanquished. Bravo, well done old chap! Now back to conversation with the adults...

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 12, 2006 01:39 PM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 06, 2006

What's Missing From This Picture?

In their March 5 issue the editors of Time, fairly drooling at the prospect of an Iraqi civil war (guess they should have read Ralph Peters' piece) enlisted the aid of four "experts" to fill in the grim, grim picture.

The four: Noah Feldman, Vali Nasr, James Fearon, and Juan Cole are suitably grave, in keeping with the preferred MSM meme of a people who have been savaged by the brutal US government and teeter on the abyss due to the Bush administration's incompetence.

But something is missing here.

In 1,290 words (two printed pages in the hardcopy edition) discussing the "civil war" in Iraq, the words "terror", "terrorism", "terrorist", and "al Qaeda" (or even, "al Qaida") appear not once.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 06:03 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.

March 05, 2006

What if They Gave a Civil War and Nobody Came?

Ralph Peters of the New York Post has been scouring Baghdad, looking for the civil war. As Peters writes, it's being hidden well:

I'M trying. I've been trying all week. The other day, I drove another 30 miles or so on the streets and alleys of Baghdad. I'm looking for the civil war that The New York Times declared. And I just can't find it.
Maybe actually being on the ground in Iraq prevents me from seeing it. Perhaps the view's clearer from Manhattan. It could be that my background as an intelligence officer didn't give me the right skills.

If you didn't twig to the dig on the Gray Lady, there's more: more...

Posted by: Bluto at 03:28 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 377 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Oh, my, this story is sure to cause a nervous breakdown on the part of the Leftists. What, I say, what are they to do? Surely there is another angle they can explore. The civil war was a rolling battle that was always either ahead or behind the US troops on patrol in Bagdad. I think Bagdad Bob is working as a stringer for the New York Times.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 05, 2006 04:08 PM (rUyw4)

2 Read on! He clearly points out what I've said months ago - the MSM is has been pulling a "Hunter Thompson" as far as on-site coverage. Forget the bias aspect of the MSM - their personal fear & cowardness has become so transparent to all.

Posted by: hondo at March 05, 2006 04:18 PM (fyKFC)

3 Kind of reminds me of the news media's opinion of how well the U.S military would fair in urban combat, because as we all know the strength of the military in the media's opinion is limited to "dropping bombs at a thousand feet on targets" Their estimates for Fallujah was a cross between a quagmire, and Ypres.

Posted by: dave at March 05, 2006 04:34 PM (CcXvt)

4 Okay no civil war - that's fine. If even if there was one, that's cool. Brown people killing brown people is okay. What about the things that matter? What about the American attrocities, the looting, the DU, the White Phosphorous, The Council on Foreign Relations?

Posted by: Graeme at March 05, 2006 04:41 PM (jeglL)

5 Oh if it wasn't for the propaganda. My goodness reality. There's no doubt how the overwhelming majority of Iraqis feel about freedom, as opposed to a small handful. I wanna add its not only the Leftist media's fear and cowardness, its their betrayal of America and Iraq. If this was Bill Clinton's war, the NYTimes would not be the enemy.

Posted by: Javapuke at March 05, 2006 05:17 PM (x5sst)

6 Is the New York Post a tabloid?

Posted by: Richard at March 05, 2006 07:11 PM (c7rNU)

7 Richard, yup. "Imperial stormtroopers of the Zionist Bushitlerburton Neocon Conspiracy" Now this is funny. How often do you see DUers and Kossacks take the names we give them and get creative like this? Where's their sense of humor? Their inventiveness? When have they ever even snidely referred to themselves as Tin Foil Hat Wearing Moonbat Colonists just to be funny? You know, if I had to pick one principal reason for not being a Democrat it would be because they just don't know how to have fun.

Posted by: Oyster at March 05, 2006 07:34 PM (YudAC)

8 Richard, The New York Post has yet to be caught fabricating documents and reporting fake stories.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 05, 2006 08:34 PM (xpnBq)

9 Richard has reservations about the Post for the same reason so many people liked Clinton; most people prefer a beautiful lie to the ugly truth.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 06, 2006 05:06 AM (0yYS2)

10 The New York Post isn't lying, but they are tabloid-ish.

Posted by: Oyster at March 06, 2006 06:31 AM (YudAC)

11 The doves are flying the vultures are dying

Posted by: sandpiper at March 06, 2006 03:14 PM (Zy1Y5)

12 The Post is published in a tabloid printing format, but it's not a National Enquirer style tabloid.

Posted by: MegaTroopX at March 07, 2006 01:37 PM (yT/Rw)

13 I read the "article" in the NY Post...simplistic and laughable at best. What did this guy expect to find ... blue and grays on horseback with Stonewall Jackson in the middle? The kind of sectarian, inter-nacine violence that has preceeded civil wars around the globe for decades is alive, well and documented, from the the far, far lefty Progressive to righty-loyalist Bill Kristol's Nation. And the Post columnist's fantasy of smiling throngs waving at US forces aside, no one doubts the potential for civil war--including Donald Rumsfeld. Sorry, but if the Post is an example of the best of non- or anti-MSM, we are, to quote Full Metal Jacket's Private Pyle, already in a world of shit.

Posted by: wavygravy at March 08, 2006 09:25 AM (UHKaK)

14 Should be William Kristol's National Review (see above.)

Posted by: wavygravy at March 08, 2006 01:12 PM (UHKaK)

15 wavygravy: do you have anything that directly impeaches Peters' firsthand, eyewitness article or are you just blowing typical moonbat partisan smoke? That was a rhetorical question, btw.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 08, 2006 01:20 PM (RHG+K)

16 I'm impeaching Peters' assertion that having people wave at you somehow means there is no civil war fomenting. And the fact he pretends to be the only journalist who's ever left the Green Zone. Several dead and mamed one could dispute the fact.

Posted by: wavygravy at March 08, 2006 02:25 PM (UHKaK)

17 Motion to impeach denied, on the basis that the counsel for the moonbats hasn't supplied any evidence to back the motion. Have a nice day.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 08, 2006 02:40 PM (RHG+K)

18 Let's see...how can I provide evidence that having people smile and wave means there's no civil war. Well, my neighbor smiled and waved at me as I left for work this morning, and didn't shoot me because I'm a Catholic. OK, I know when I'm beaten.

Posted by: wavygravy at March 08, 2006 02:51 PM (UHKaK)

19 Why not find a journalist who had the balls to ride around outside the green zone when Peters did who can counter what Peters reported? Failing that, you could talk to folks who have actually served or are currently serving in Iraq to see if what the MSM reports is accurate (not according to my friends and family in the war zone), but I suppose people like you don't associate with the commoners who actually fight the wars, do you? You're right. You lose.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 08, 2006 03:01 PM (RHG+K)

20 I see. Please clarify, in which war did you fight, commoner? I served from early 1980 to mid-1982 in the 563rd Combat Engineer Battalion in Ludendorf Kaserne Kornwesthiem--the 4th generation of my family to serve in the military including infantry in Korea and WWII. You?

Posted by: wavygravy at March 08, 2006 03:09 PM (UHKaK)

21 Typical. Tell me who you know who's currently serving in Iraq, not Germany, and what they're telling you to contradict Peters. Before you go too far with the Combat Engineer story; my son-in-law just finished his tour with a Combat Engineer unit. The BS detector will be set to maximum. FYI: I left a fairly lucrative advertising career and entered government service in 2003, where I was used as a human explosives detector until ruining my knee in late 2004. I'm still awaiting authorization for replacement surgery. So far, government service has cost me one knee and approximately $30,000 in salary differential vs. private sector earnings. What have you been doing since 9/11?

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 08, 2006 03:30 PM (RHG+K)

22 Oh, and my Dad eventually died in 1989, the result of the wound that earned him the Purple Heart on Okinawa. He was a Sergeant of Marines; enlisted at age seventeen. He also won the Bronze Star in action near Yontan airfield, also on Okinawa. His brother died in 1966 from malaria contracted in the South Pacific while serving in the Army.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 08, 2006 03:35 PM (RHG+K)

23 You want pictures of me working on roads and airfield improvements in the Divisional Engineer Battalion (DEB) of the 24th Infantry Division (CONUS), send me your personal e-mail address...I've got hundreds of 'em. Maybe you bullshit on the Web, I don't need to. And no, I haven't been a human explosives detector since 9/11, nor a food tester to the King, a crash test dummy or any other such heroics. I've been doing what' I've been doing for 18 years -- an adverising copywriter

Posted by: wavygravy at March 08, 2006 03:46 PM (UHKaK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Crackdown On Leakers Has MSM Panties All Bunched Up

The Washington Post reports that:

The Bush administration, seeking to limit leaks of classified information, has launched initiatives targeting journalists and their possible government sources. The efforts include several FBI probes, a polygraph investigation inside the CIA and a warning from the Justice Department that reporters could be prosecuted under espionage laws.

Excellent news! It's past time for such a crackdown, as recent leaks of classified material to the New York Times amply demonstrate. more...

Posted by: Bluto at 01:03 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 308 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I agree with you it is excellent news, but I can't help to be sceptical anything substantial will result. I hope my pessimism proves very wrong. I would consider some of the leaks akin to treason and my opinion is if most Americans understood the motives, possible and actual consequences, they would agree.

Posted by: Javapuke at March 05, 2006 03:39 AM (JDPNl)

2 Hell yes is my first response, but then, I'm like JP above; I'll believe it when I see it.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 05, 2006 06:16 AM (0yYS2)

3 Here's another one...the Sixth Amendment this time: AP: Thousands of Federal Cases Kept Secret WASHINGTON - Despite the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of public trials, nearly all records are being kept secret for more than 5,000 defendants who completed their journey through the federal courts over the last three years. Instances of such secrecy more than doubled from 2003 to 2005.

Posted by: KarmiCommunist at March 05, 2006 09:16 AM (0y+ms)

4 KarmiCommunist, Did you even bother to read the next paragraph that says that most of the secrecy is for the purpose of witness protection? Have you considered the consequences of identifying, with pictures, no doubt, the people who testify against organized (or even not so organized) crime? Whose side does that put you on?

Posted by: OldGeek at March 05, 2006 09:42 AM (6ENow)

5 OldGeek, Yes, i read it; however, that info followed the article's subject, "Thousands of Federal Cases Kept Secret", and the opening paragraph, "Despite the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of public trials, nearly all records are being kept secret for more than 5,000 defendants...", and for obvious reasons the AP didn't want the facts up 'top'...so to speak of their headlines often being misleading. My point was to add to Bluto's point that MSM's "Panties All Bunched Up".

Posted by: KarmiCommunist at March 05, 2006 10:06 AM (0y+ms)

6 Perhaps all of these "leakers" should read the following post and realize that such actions were not always considered beneficial to the country.

Posted by: Tom at March 05, 2006 10:10 AM (EVTX6)

7 It's ironic, though not surprising, that the only time liberals get upset about an alleged violation of the Constitution is when it's for the good of the country. The rest of the time, when it's only about stifling speech, religion, and gun ownership, they're fine with it. As I've often repeated, liberals should all be shot.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 05, 2006 10:18 AM (0yYS2)

8 KarmicCommunist, I misunderstood! Perhaps another cup of coffee this morning will help my reading comprehension!

Posted by: OldGeek at March 05, 2006 10:38 AM (6ENow)

9 Good one, Tom.

Posted by: Oyster at March 05, 2006 11:12 AM (YudAC)

10 The Leftists and liberals are all for the US being a nation of laws until they violate one. Then that law MUST be wrong since it caught them, as the liberals constantly ignore and violate and encourage the violation of secrecy laws and immigration laws, among many others. They want a nation of laws only when it is the law they support. Hypocrits!

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 05, 2006 12:18 PM (rUyw4)

11 OldGeek, i write in a Dualistic mixture of Karmic and Babble, which i don't even understand 75% of the time.

MSM has been desperately trying to attack W on Constitutional levels/issues recently, since it seems that some of them may end up in Prison for breaking some serious Laws. Heck, they may even ask their sentencing Judge to seal their court records, before this is over!!!

))

Posted by: KarmiCommunist at March 05, 2006 12:40 PM (Wm4GU)

12 To JP's first: And as it is treason when these asshats are located, minimum they should be hung as soon as they complete one last mission. March them full circle around the world they're trying to destroy. Run them on foot through every state, where blood is red and spines not yellow. If they survive that, hang the basturds until they rot.

Posted by: forest hunter at March 05, 2006 06:48 PM (Fq6zR)

13 Great setup for entrapment! Call a reporter and leak some Unclassified material to them. Then hang up and stamp it Classified Â– puff, one more reporter gone. Its not just the American people this president wants to keep in the dark, the main target is Congress Â– how many times have you seen a senator stand at the podium waving a newspaper article because it was the only way THEY found out about something they should have been privy to in the first place. You have to hand it to Rove. Bush has classified more documents than any other President in history.

Posted by: Dahl Kaiser at March 06, 2006 10:13 AM (ooiag)

14 Uh, Mr. Kaiser(cute name), we aren't talking about your run of the mill article here, but about helping terrorists get around efforts to identify them. One hopes that the next time the terrorists strike it will be close to the NYT. And your allegation of entrapment is ridiculous on its face. That would be ex post facto and not subject to prosecution.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 06, 2006 10:26 AM (rUyw4)

15 Ah, but jesusland kind sir, you assume the terrorists are stupid and knew nothing of our wiretaps. I have yet to see an article that would enlighten them. Ex post facto would not apply as back dating a document would be minor maleficents.

Posted by: Dahl Kaiser at March 06, 2006 10:54 AM (ooiag)

16 For one thing, how many times have we found that our illustrious congress critters and senators had not even read some of the documentation they're given? Too many of them are too intellectually lazy to educate themselves with what information they DO have at their disposal. Get real.

Posted by: Oyster at March 06, 2006 11:11 AM (n/nt4)

17 Point taken Mr. Oyster and agreed upon. Too many are indeed intellectually lazy and do not read the documents put before them or even read their internÂ’s summaries. Even more necessary to get their attention with headlines. To anyone who has been paying attention for the past five years, it should be clear that this administration will use all of the levels of power to achieve its goals including keeping a congress in the dark..

Posted by: Dahl Kaiser at March 06, 2006 11:49 AM (ooiag)

18 And the Clinton Administration was transparent! And I believe in the tooth fairy, and Santa Clause, and the Easter Bunny.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 06, 2006 12:00 PM (rUyw4)

19 Of course not but they tried to ignored the press, they did not try to shut down the press. And yes, if you will excuse my being snippy, anyone who believes in the Bush Administration would indeed believe in the tooth fairy, and Santa Clause, and the Easter Bunny.

Posted by: Dahl Kaiser at March 06, 2006 12:24 PM (ooiag)

20 Who is trying to shut down the press? Snippy indeed, more like foolish.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 06, 2006 06:14 PM (rUyw4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 04, 2006

AP 'Clarifies' Blunder

Here's what the Tampa Tribune said Thursday on the front page:

Bush Alerted To Levee Danger
From The Associated Press
Published: Mar 2, 2006
WASHINGTON - In dramatic and sometimes agonizing terms, federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees, put lives at risk in New Orleans' Superdome and overwhelm rescuers, according to confidential video footage.

more...

Posted by: Bluto at 11:52 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 269 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Assuming we give a damn what the AP says anymore.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 04, 2006 12:02 PM (8e/V4)

2 AP - Autorantic Piffle definition - A once occasional occurence of false or misleading information emanating from a news source which has grown to phenomenal proportions due to the ratio of indigenous, agenda-driven journalists to fact-driven journalists reaching a critical imbalance. The result is the automatic and uncontrolled bursts of extreme opinions taking on a life of their own and inserting themselves into recent historical accounts. They grow exponentially as said historical accounts go further back. (see bullshit)

Posted by: Oyster at March 04, 2006 12:35 PM (YudAC)

3 So the levees were not topped. Why then did they fail ? I think because they were not properly maintained or checked. What/which agencies are reponsible for maintaince of the levees ?

Posted by: john ryan at March 04, 2006 01:18 PM (TcoRJ)

4 john ryan, there is a patchwork of more than a dozen local Louisiana agencies charged with inspection and maintenance of the levee system. Corruption at that level is generally acknowledged to be ramapant.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 04, 2006 01:29 PM (RHG+K)

5 AP reports might be entertaining to birds whose cages are lined with papers that carry them, and to idiot moonbats, but nobody with any sense pays them any heed.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 04, 2006 04:06 PM (0yYS2)

6 The levee system was never really 'designed'; rather, it sort of evolved and grew over more than a century. Sometimes the levees were added on to without very good information on the preceding construction. Different groups designed, built and maintained different parts of the system over all those years, and even today. The Army Corps of Engineers has for some time had oversight authority on new design and construction (and seem to have not done it all that well), but actual construction and maintainance has always been in the hands of local political groups. Levee failures below the Industrial Canal seem to have been the result of just way too much water for too little levee - the things just washed out when topped. There seems to have been some degree of design and construction shortcuts there (poor soil type used, whether by design or otherwise) but it probably didn't matter - the areas would have flooded if they were built like the Hoover Dam. The canal levees that broke and flooded the main part of New Orleans seem to have collapsed under the pressure of the water - they weren't 'topped' by rising water, nor were they just washed out by water flowing over the top. They collapsed. Poor design? Seems at least partly to blame. Poor construction? No proof, but given local political corruption I would be surprised if it was not a factor. Poor maintainance? For sure. Dredging canals too deep and close. Failure to find pre-storm leaks (evidence of weak points), or even act on them when they were reported. It doesn't look like things are likely to change either. NOTHING could have been done between when Katrina entered the Gulf and when the water flooded the city that would have reduced the ultimate damage by a nickel. It would have taken a week or more even if you KNEW exactly what was going to happen and why (which obviously no one did know.) There's plenty to blame Bush for, but this is just not one of those things.

Posted by: Glenmore at March 04, 2006 04:20 PM (3Xc3/)

7 Aaaaahhhh - I'm waiting for the really big fight yet to come. A leevee system (which will always be fundamentally flawed and only a temporary measure) utilized to reclaim delta marshlands for .... Urban Sprawl? This is gonna be some fight - to rebuild or not rebuild! The potential pricetag will be beyond imagination with no guarantees.

Posted by: hondo at March 04, 2006 07:46 PM (fyKFC)

8 The taxpayer should not have to pay for the rebuilding of NO when we all know that a hurricane in the Cat3-5 range can form in the Gulf and hit NO every year. The land in and around NO cannot support a large city, and why would anyone want to build a home below sea level, anyway. Doesn't make economic sense to me.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 04, 2006 10:54 PM (rUyw4)

9 NOLA should be converted to an actual landfill. After all, it has been functioning as a human landfill for a long time, so why not just send real garbage there?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 05, 2006 06:33 AM (0yYS2)

10 AP tells another lie they should be made to appoligise not to bush but to the american people for lying to them

Posted by: sandpiper at March 05, 2006 02:11 PM (stdEd)

11 Adware remover free adware removal free adware. Adware download? Adware spyware remover anti adware adware spyware removal spyware Spyware Spyware Doctor, Anti Spyware Spyware Removal. Free Spyware Removal! Spyware Removal adware download anti adware remove adware spyware Spyware Blaster spyware Microsoft Anti Spyware adware se adware removal free adware remover. Adware se adware se? Spyware Remover Free Anti Spyware Spyware Removal. Anti Spyware adware download adware adware spyware removal? Free Spyware Removal Anti Spyware adware spyware remover? No adware Free Spyware adware se! Anti Spyware Free Anti Spyware free adware remover adware no adware ad adware Microsoft Anti Spyware adware spyware remover anti adware Spyware Doctor free adware remover Spyware Doctor adware spyware removal tool free adware remover adware spyware adware spyware removal tool adware spyware remover free adware remover. Free Spyware Remover Free Spyware Remover adware removal Spyware Blaster adware se Free Spyware Removal, adware 6 Free Anti Spyware adware download adware remover free adware Adware ad adware? No adware adware download lavasoft adware adware removal Spyware Blaster adware se adware spyware remover Spyware Blaster adware spyware removal adware removal spyware Spyware Blaster anti adware anti adware adware 6 adware 6 adware removal adware se adware 6 adware spyware spyware. Spyware Blaster spyware remove adware Free Spyware Remover adware se Free Spyware Remover. Adware 6 adware se anti adware adware se Spyware Doctor! Free Spyware Remover adware download? Spyware Anti Spyware Microsoft Anti Spyware adware download Free Anti Spyware free adware download adware spyware removal tool Free Spyware Remover adware 6 adware spyware remover Free Spyware Removal adware spyware removal adware 6 lavasoft adware anti adware adware spyware removal tool adware removal free adware download free adware! Free Spyware Remover, Free Anti Spyware adware se free adware download Anti Spyware Free Spyware Removal adware spyware removal tool spyware adware spyware remover free adware remove adware adware spyware removal adware 6 lavasoft adware adware remover Spyware Remover, adware spyware removal adware 6 Free Spyware adware spyware remover Spyware Blaster free adware remover. Adware spyware adware spyware removal tool adware Spyware Removal adware spyware adware se anti adware Spyware lavasoft adware free adware remover free adware download adware spyware removal tool no adware, anti adware adware spyware adware 6. Adware download no adware Free Anti Spyware remove adware lavasoft adware, free adware adware removal Free Anti Spyware adware spyware free adware? http://1-spyware.net/ http://1-spyware.net/spyware http://1-spyware.net/adware Spyware SPYWARE Adware

Posted by: Spyware Doctor at April 03, 2006 06:35 PM (fjUf0)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

104kb generated in CPU 0.0361, elapsed 0.1354 seconds.
127 queries taking 0.1112 seconds, 391 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

March 31, 2006

March 26, 2006

March 24, 2006

March 23, 2006

March 18, 2006

March 15, 2006

March 10, 2006

March 06, 2006

March 05, 2006

March 04, 2006

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds