Blogs for Bush Team
Matt Margolis, Founder/Editor
Russ Emerson, Webmaster
Mark Noonan, Senior Writer
Kevin Patrick, Senior Writer
Paul Lewis, Senior Writer

News Tips

Guest Bloggers
Sister Toldjah

Blogroll For Bush


Above are the 43 most recently updated blogs. Click here for the full blogroll

Allies


Archives
Categories

B4B Coverage Of...
The 2004 Republican National Convention
The Alito Nomination
The Roberts Nomination
The Roberts Hearings
Hurricane Katrina

Recent Posts
Ultimatum to Syria?
40 Terrorists Killed in Afghanistan
The Left Will Scream About This
Happy Birthday, President Ford
What Media Bias? Part 54
It is Not an Arab/Israeli War
The Democrats' 2006 Plan
Democrats Admit DCCC Fundraiser Video Was Wrong
Democrats' Domestic Spying
Bastille Day
Open Thread: You Know The Drill
Some Good Reading Material
The End of Cowboy Diplomacy?
What To Do Now?
The Worsening Situation in Israel, Part II
CBS Falsely Claims Bush Administration Condoned Torture
NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program To Be Reviewed By Court
Border Security Bulletin
The Democrats and Dead Soldiers
These Things Are Not True


Margolis Media Works

Add to My Yahoo!


CentCom

GOP Bloggers

Thank you, President Bush

Social Security Information



Blogs for Bush Store





Search The Grand Old Portal

Donate to Blogs For Bush to help keep us blogging!
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Prime Sponsor

Visit Our Sponsors!


Visit Our Sponsors!



Subscribe To B4Bcast!


Site Credits
RSS 2.0

Powered by:
Movable Type 3.2

Design by:






July 14, 2006
The End of Cowboy Diplomacy?

Time magazine has an extraordinarily silly article about the supposed end of President Bush's "cowboy" diplomacy - the meme seems to be that, at long last, President Bush is wising up and starting to work with the rest of the world to achieve our goals. There's only one thing wrong with Time's theory - there never was a cowboy diplomacy for Bush to abandon.

What Time means by "cowboy", of course, is "lacking French support" - or, perhaps, "lacking full UN support". You are, by definition, a cowboy if you don't have that. The support of "Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand ... Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and... other countries..." just doesn't cut much ice with Time, or any MSM outfit.

Peter Wehner neatly deconstructs Time's absurd article - and also offers an excellent view of just what multilateralism is:

There is a lot of intellectual sloppiness surrounding the discussion of multilateralism. Everyone can agree that it is better to have the support of many nations rather than a few - and multilateral agreements can be quite important.

But the nature of the world is that unanimous support is rare and even broad consensus is not always forthcoming, precisely because nations often have fundamentally different views of what constitutes their national interest and the moral good...

...For the sake of the discussion, let's stipulate that action by a handful of nations could overthrow a brutal tyranny, advance liberty, and stop the killing of innocent people on a mass scale. Should that objective be blocked if other nations don't want to support the effort? Is multilateralism a moral end in itself, or a (preferable) means to an end? If it is an end in itself, what standards apply? Should nations be paralyzed from acting unless they receive the support of the UN Security Council? How many nations need to support an action before it is considered sufficiently multilateral and therefore justifiable? Ten? Fifty? One hundred and fifty? And what happens if a nation, perhaps for reasons of corruption or bad motivation, seeks to prevent a particular action from being taken? What happens if more good can be achieved with a smaller rather than a larger coalition? What if multilateralism and diplomacy, pursued in good faith, ultimately fail? What then? These are the kind of questions commentators and magazine writers should address in an intellectually serious manner.

Much to the chagrin of conservative stalwarts (like myself, eg), President Bush has bent over backwards to accomodate the opinion of the world. It hasn't mattered in the slightest - and don't buy nonsense like France has a different view of the matter, or Russia wants X rather than Y to happen. Plain and simple, the reasons for opposition to American action run the gamut all the way from corruption to cowardice. The critics are either downright afraid of offending the enemy, or they are bribed by the enemy in to inaction. No two ways about it - that is all there is to the opposition 'round the world. My view is that it would have been better to ignore it - but President Bush is far less cowboy about these things than I am.

Posted by Mark Noonan at July 14, 2006 02:25 AM



Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/whitehouse.cgi/7501

Comments

Time is ridiculous. The Bush Doctrine is actually expanding. Japan has adopted President Bush's pre-emptive strike doctrine to defend itself against North Korea.

Yippykayay!!!

Posted by: Freedom1 [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 14, 2006 02:55 AM

Time was needing to sell some 'copy'... They picked their biggest money maker and shook the money tree...

Posted by: TexasFred at July 14, 2006 03:07 AM

Cowboy diplomacy? You really need a definition for that?

He has protrayed the swaggering John Wayneish Texan wannabe the whole time in office.

His cute little flight suit.

His high falootin nicknames for his minions, like "turdblossom", etc.

Come on now, he's from Conneticut. He attended Yale. He's a fratboy. Are cowboys fratboys?

His, I ain't backen down, who care's that 2/3 of the people don't want us there. I'm gonna do what I gotta do to "protect" the American people. I'm the decider. I decide.

Do you think that other nations of ADULTS see the way he acts? Like a little cowboy on his little horesy, with his two wittle cowboys guns in his cute wittle holster.

Oh he's a bad mean man alright. Just you other nations quiver in fear. Statesman? Shatesman. I'm here to kick ass and take names.

No wonder other much older and in most cases wiser nations look at us with ironic depreciating smiles as he cracks his cute wittle jokes at the podium.

What Time is saying is: His cute wittle schtick ain't workin' no mo...

Your Raker

Posted by: raker13 [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 14, 2006 03:29 AM

There's a problem with pre-emptively striking Iran. Forget the nuke thing. That's years away. The bigger problem is that strategic air strikes would be military suicide. Iran has CRUISE MISSILES that can fly further one way than our fighter jets can travel round trip, meaning, after the first bomb falls, our carriers, wherever they are, are toast. Nukes would definitely complicate things, but conventional warheads would be plenty.

Let's play a little game I like to call "theater of the absurd." Let's say Karl Rove was right, and in fact Republicans responded to 9-11 with a trillion dollars worth of bombs while Democrats would have responded by sending therapists to Afghanistan.

One trillion dollars worth of therapists.

How would the outcome be different? These therapists would include psychiatrists, psycologists, masseuses, doctors, chiropractors and even more important to winning hearts and minds, Tony Robbins finacial gurus backed up with incredibly favorable business loans to small enterpreneurs, shopkeepers, college loans, subsidies for cell phone expansion and city parks and recreation.

A trillion dollars worth.

Never happen. Why? Americans would groan about spending all that money, naturally. What's in it for us, right? We'd rather flex our muscle than our brains. To paraphrase Barbie, "Math is hard. Let's go bomb ragheads."

So it's totally absurd. Just like what really happened, albeit with a lot less death.

Cowboy diplomacy only works against poorly armed Indians. It didn't work for Custer. It's no mystery why Bush is now touting diplomacy, and saying it takes time. These Indians have long range tomahawks.

Posted by: congressive [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 14, 2006 04:38 AM

Mark, I have a suggestion. It's off-topic, except that it's an issue that has involved virtually every single post you've made for months, including this one.

After dozens of blue screen of death featuring:

"Error 500 - Server Error

We apologize for the reoccuring server errors that are currently being experienced at Blogs For Bush. Something has been causing a problem with the server, which we are trying to isolate and resolve.

If you were posting comment, your comment was likely received and you probably do not need to resubmit. In the event of a double-post, we will do our best to delete them when we can."

I've realized you need a more Republican approach.

Why are you admitting error? Very liberal of you. How about putting a big wavy flag with bright red graphics announcing:

"We apologize for nothing. We're Americans, darnitall. Liberals has been causing a problem with the server, whom we are trying to detain and interrogate.

If you were posting a conservative comment, your comment was likely received and you probably do not need to resubmit. In the event of a liberal-post, we will do our best to delete them when we can. Don't cut and run. Cut and paste."

Maybe a photo of Bush holding a puppy, or a hacker in Gitmo writing "bad code."

Server error? Heck no, it's an opportunity to blame lefties for yet another of society's ills. We can all thank Al Gore for inventing such a flawed internet. If the Republicans had invented it, it would work like Clockwork (Orange).

Posted by: congressive [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 14, 2006 05:54 AM

HALLO FROM SLOVENIA! NICE BLOG MR PRESIDENT!!

Posted by: ALONSO at July 14, 2006 06:30 AM

soo, the left decryed unilateralism in Iraq...meaning, of course, no Blue hats...who remain locked in garrison observing the Rwandian slaughter of ONE MILLION.

aaand, the left decries the LACK of unilateralism in north korea & iran...since multilateralism has not worked.

hummm...what is one to deduce about the left...hummm (fingers drumming)...oh, I know...it's all W's fault...yea baby!

Posted by: OhioOrrin at July 14, 2006 07:13 AM

Shorter Raker & Congressive (moonbat chorus in F minor): ...

Posted by: Bob Arctor [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 14, 2006 07:18 AM

Well the one part of cowboy diplomacy that I supported: "Wanted Dead or Alive" is totally off the foreign policy agenda as the CIA inexplicably decided to disband its unit which has had the responsibility for the hunt for Bin Laden for the last five years. I guess George "Wayne" has decided to turn yeller, hang up his six-shooters, and head on down to the ranch.

Hello?? Don't Americans at least deserve some kind of explanation as to why it is no longer important to hunt for Bin Laden?

Posted by: kritter at July 14, 2006 08:21 AM

mark - what PLANET do you live on?

Much to the chagrin of conservative stalwarts (like myself, eg), President Bush has bent over backwards to accomodate the opinion of the world.

honestly, where do you pull this Sh*t out of?

chimpy boy wishes he could be a cowboy but in reality he's a lily-livered, thin-skinned coward.
chimpy mcflightsuit.

Posted by: bloviator [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 14, 2006 08:57 AM

Now that's what I call a winning argument, bloviator. I'm convinced. You really have your facts together. bloviator's points are essential...

...for me to poop on.

Fitting name, though.

Posted by: Bob Arctor [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 14, 2006 09:41 AM

Wanted: Dead or Alive

Posted by: Ash [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 14, 2006 09:42 AM

"Theater of the absurd" indeed. One trillion dollars worth of therapists.

And after the Taliban had beheaded your army of "psychiatrists, psycologists, masseuses, doctors, chiropractors and ...finacial gurus" what would you liberals have done?

Do you really think the terrorists care about "small enterpreneurs, shopkeepers, college loans, subsidies for cell phone expansion and city parks and recreation"? Their goal is to convert, subjugate, or kill infidels (that's you and me - unless, of course, you are Muslim). Get that through your head, before you lose it to an Islamist-Fascist terrorist.

Posted by: A-10 [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 14, 2006 09:43 AM

blomiator whines....

"mark - what PLANET do you live on?

Much to the chagrin of conservative stalwarts (like myself, eg), President Bush has bent over backwards to accomodate the opinion of the world.
honestly, where do you pull this Sh*t out of?

chimpy boy wishes he could be a cowboy but in reality he's a lily-livered, thin-skinned coward.
chimpy mcflightsuit."

Uh...what planet do you live on?????

Do you remember when Bush made his intentions to remove Hussein from power??? The intentions made months before the actual invasion??? What happened during those months???

Don't bother checking your talking points....inspenctions and a chance for Iraq to capitulate in its obligations to the original cease fire agreement of '91.

Bush relented to the "world" in giving Hussein ANOTHER CHANCE....giving Hussein another chance to.....well, we all see what he did with that time, just like the others....releases a report on his WMDs that was 10,000+ pages long and offered very little substance...you know like your liberal plan for America.

That's just one example of Bush trying to appease "the world" and what does he get for that???? More of the same, vitriol and hatred.

OK, blomivator, you know the old saying..."Money talks, bullshit walks.", time for you to get walkin'!

Posted by: TiredofLibBullShit [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 14, 2006 09:54 AM

Do you remember when Bush made his intentions to remove Hussein from power??? The intentions made months before the actual invasion??? What happened during those months???

I'll take door number two: He was reading "Thomas, The Little Engine That Could" to a second grade class on the Hamptons.

Posted by: Ash [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 14, 2006 09:59 AM

Raker & Ash:

Two weeks ago I was in Europe meeting with friends and taking in some of the World Cup.

When meeting with Dutch friends, I had very long discussions on the USA & Bush. At first, they stated the media in Europe has painted him as a cowboy.

As our conversation continued, they conceded that they recognize that what the US is doing is the right thing and needs to be done. They are scared. They have radical Islam nearby (in fact, Muhammad Atta spent a considerable amount of time in their town)...both locally and regionally.

I asked them what Europe was going to do about the Middle East and they stated 'nothing.' Politicians and people are intimidated by the threat of Islam. Instead, they will let the US act to deal with this threat --- publicly ask for caution....but, privately they are 100% behind what we are doing.

It is high time you trust fund babies get on a plane and go to Iraq to do humanitarian services. Perhaps then, as a rusty blade is about to take your head off, you will realize the danger of these people.

mn lib

Posted by: minnesota libertarian at July 14, 2006 10:14 AM

MinLib,

I am glad your friends are speaking for the entirety of Europe; Spain, France, Germany, Italy, and their Netherlands etc. don't seem to agree.

be prepared for a never-ending war of 'somewhere over there' and the obligatory, monthly raising of the terror alert to mauve, or taupe, or whatever it is that will garner the most attention, to detract the spotlight from being shined too brightly on our mangled losing of the peace in Iraq...Civil War...nawwww, couldn't be!

Posted by: Third Eye Open [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 14, 2006 10:52 AM

The critics are either downright afraid of offending the enemy, or they are bribed by the enemy in to inaction. No two ways about it - that is all there is to the opposition 'round the world.

So your whole "I cannot tell a lie" schtick is indeed predicated on the "it's not a lie if I really, really believe it" metric. What a complete nonsurprise.

Posted by: SeesThroughIt at July 14, 2006 11:09 AM

A Rightwing Republican talks to his friends in Europe who are probably also Rightwing fascists and gets agreement that it is good, these days, to be a warmonger. The same conversation with the same players, took place in 1939 Germany. Peace

Posted by: steve at July 14, 2006 11:54 AM

And after the Taliban had beheaded your army of "psychiatrists, psycologists, masseuses, doctors, chiropractors and ...finacial gurus" what would you liberals have done?

Why, they'd sue! Looney Liberal Theater of the Absurd simply writes itself.

Posted by: Bob Arctor [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 14, 2006 12:05 PM

Mark -

I posted this on a previous thread, but wanted to make sure you saw it.

You write: "Geesh - for crying out loud, the consortium of newspapers which did the recount found that by all methods EXCEPT for one which Gore did not pursue, President Bush would have won the recount in Floria. You've got it exactly backwards...but no surpise at all."

Uh, no Mark - it is you who have it backwards. The newspaper consortium found that under every standard, a recount of the entire state gave Gore the win. But had the limited recounts requested by Gore in specific counties gone forward, or had the limited count of undervotes requested by the Florida Supreme court gone forward, then Bush would have prevailed. Kind of ironic, no?

Here are the results of the newspaper consorotium's recount, published on Nov 12, 2001:

Review of All Ballots Statewide
• Standard as set by each county Canvassing Board during their survey... Gore by 171
• Fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots... Gore by 115
• Any dimples or optical mark... Gore by 107
• One corner of chad detached or optical mark ... Gore by 60

Review of Limited Sets of Ballots
• Gore request for recounts of all ballots in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia counties... Bush by 225
• Florida Supreme Court of all undervotes statewide... Bush by 430

Posted by: Aarontime [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 14, 2006 12:19 PM

(in fact, Muhammad Atta spent a considerable amount of time in their town)

Unfortunately, we have dumb rightwingers in the Netherlands too (let me guess, was it Geert Wilders?).

Muhammad Atta never spent "considerable amount of time" in the Netherlands. They were either talking about somebody else or talking out of their a$$es to get more drinks from you.

Posted by: Willem van Oranje [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 14, 2006 12:45 PM

stevie - what a silly boy.

the "rightwing facists" in '39 were, in fact, emboldened by chamberlin's appeasement following the Nazi invasion & annexation of sudentenland.

this is maybe 10th grade history u twit.

ck it out, stevie...

Photograph of Sudetenland Welcomes the Fuhrer The Sudetenland is a historical region comprising areas of the Czechoslovakian provinces of Bohemia and ...
www.humboldt.edu/~rescuers/ book/Chlup/chluplinks/sudeten.html - 3k

Posted by: OhioOrrin at July 14, 2006 01:18 PM

you trust fund babies

Huh?

raker, are you a trust fund baby?

Oh yeah, minnlib: bring it on, baby!

Posted by: Ash [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 14, 2006 01:35 PM

"What Time means by "cowboy", of course, is "lacking French support" - or, perhaps, "lacking full UN support". You are, by definition, a cowboy if you don't have that." - Noonan.

No, Mark - "cowboy" means:

"Bring 'em on."

"Wanted: Dead or Alive."

"I'm the Decider."

"Axis of Evil."

"Mission Accomplished."

"Old Europe."

Etc., etc., etc.

It gets old. Especially when these things don't actually mean anything - yet you take the bait, hook, line, sinker.

Posted by: maf53 [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 14, 2006 01:45 PM

Trouble is Willem,
Minlib's story about Europeons secretly agreeing with the policies of GWB is all BullScheiße. To be sure there are small pockets of European right wingers who agree with Bush, but they are few and very far between. I've heard at least three dozen similar stories like this from regressives over the past 3 years. Truth is, it's nothing more than an urban legend. It's a story that BORROW AND SPEND Republicans love to tell on occasion to make themselves seem not so ISOLATED in the community of nations. No proof it happened mind you. Just take their word for it.
Truth is, at their core they're ISOLATIONISTS. They want us out of the UN, out of the Geneva Convention, isolated in our own little world because they see themselves as the biggest guy on the block so why share any of the goodies and why let the "small fries" hold us back.When they went to war they couldn't slag off "old Europe" fast enough now their story is they were secretly with us all along. These people are talking so fast out of both sides of their mouth they can't keep track of the party line anymore. Scratch that, they were secretly with us all along, has become the party line. They're so desparate for friends now they have to make them up.

Posted by: Leftorium [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 14, 2006 01:47 PM

Leftorium: I know, I'm Dutch and live in the Netherlands.

The Dutch consider the Bush-administration a far greater threat to national and global security and stability than islamic extremists.

Posted by: Willem van Oranje [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 14, 2006 03:03 PM

Willam van Oranje

The list of countries supporting the policies of Bush is growing shorter by the day. Those who initially signed on are now realizing their mistake and are fleeing the sinking ship before it goes down.

Posted by: Canadian Observer [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 14, 2006 05:06 PM

"The support of "Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand ... Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and... other countries..." just doesn't cut much ice with Time, or any MSM outfit."


Don't forget Estonia!
Or Kazakhstan!

Posted by: Wyckyd Sceptre [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 14, 2006 05:32 PM

Time Magazine just recites the typical Liberal spin over and over again.

Posted by: dr. jeff at July 14, 2006 05:41 PM

"Do you really think the terrorists care about "small enterpreneurs, shopkeepers, college loans, subsidies for cell phone expansion and city parks and recreation"? Their goal is to convert, subjugate, or kill infidels (that's you and me - unless, of course, you are Muslim). Get that through your head, before you lose it to an Islamist-Fascist terrorist."

The terrorists are coming! The terrorists are coming! Bwak! Bwak! Run for your lives! We're all gonna die! Only the Republicans can save us now! God bless the Republicans!

Problem is, do you think the PEOPLE would give a rat's behind if the Taliban came recruiting? Heart and minds. Military strategy to win a terrorist war is to win hearts and minds of civilians. Oh, heck. Just kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out, right? That'll show 'em.
Flex that muscle. Turn the other cheek while reaching for a Glock! Death! Kill! All Muslims want everyone else dead! So let's kill 'em all! Man, woman and child, right?

This strategy is working brilliantly so far, n'est pas?

For those who missed the subtlety of the absurd, Rove's suggestion was absurd. If it were true, it would be absurd. What ACTUALLY is happening is absurd. You either get it or you don't.

Bwak!

Posted by: congressive [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 14, 2006 05:42 PM

Here is some "10th grade history" for you: All the people involved in the assassination of Lincoln were Roman Catholics. The Rightwing Christians in this country believes that to be just a coincidence. What you on the Right fails to understand is that the wealthy are generally lazy and dumb. Peace

Posted by: steve at July 14, 2006 07:11 PM

Congressive,

"Problem is, do you think the PEOPLE would give a rat's behind if the Taliban came recruiting?"

The Taliban don't give people a choice, they just kill you. The Somalis are finding that out right now. Within the last two weeks, Somali Islamists who have taken over the Somalian government killed at least two people just for watching the World Cup-a man and a teenaged girl; and the Somali Islamists used their militia to interrupt a wedding because the wedding guests were listening to music and men and women were mixing together.

"The terrorists are coming! The terrorists are coming!"

*Mumbai train bombing killed 200, wounded 700.

*First anniversary of 7/7 London train bombing last week. Poll: 13% of British Muslims regard 7/7 bombers as "martyrs".

*Muslim terrorist plot to bomb NYC Path train tunnel and flood lower Manhattan uncovered by FBI.

*Sufi Muslim mastermind of the Beslan school massacre that slaughtered 340 people-including 184 children-killed by Russian forces last week.

*Muslim terrorist plot to bomb the Sears Tower and bomb FBI offices by 7 Muslims in Florida uncovered by FBI.

*17 Muslim Canadians who had 3 tons of ammonium nitrate and a plot to destroy Canadian government buildings arrested.

*Three weeks of Muslim riots all across France, burning hundreds of cars last fall.

"This strategy is working brilliantly so far, n'est pas?"

Speaking of France, the French soccer player Zidane, who headbutted the Italian player, is a self-described non-practicing Muslim. Iran's president praised Zidane's headbutt and so did Zidane's mother. Larry Elder highlighted her scary comments on his radio show, yesterday.

Then, of course, there's this: 5358

Posted by: Freedom1 [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 14, 2006 11:00 PM

"The Taliban don't give people a choice, they just kill you."

I have asked this before. Why, after 9-11, is there even one single breathing Taliban member on the face of the earth? Why, after 9-11, with the world at our sides, did we not scrub these vermin from every crack and boulder crevice in Afghanistan to the point of absolute extinction? Why? Because George and Rummy and Cheney and Wolfowitz and Rice and Powell couldn't be bothered to finish the job. The neocons had their Pearl Harbor and had no intention of wasting it on the Taliban.

Are you happy, Freedom1, that they didn't finish the job? Are you blaming liberals for not finishing the job? Did some liberal stop them from finishing the job before turning their gunturrets toward Iraq? Is the world a safer place because they didn't finish the job? You ACTUALLY believe the Bush administration is making the world safer?

Zidane's headbutt? Are you joking me? Is that the "two" of your "one-two" punch? Ahmadinejerk praised a headbutt - let's bomb Iran?

But, seriously folks, why does a single Taliban butthead still breath?

Posted by: congressive [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 15, 2006 03:11 AM

congressive: "Bwak!"

That's the most insightful thing I've seen you post here. Congratulations! You want a cracker?

Posted by: Bob Arctor [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 15, 2006 07:09 AM

But, seriously folks, why does a single Taliban butthead still breath?

So you support the war on terror now?

Posted by: Bob Arctor [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 15, 2006 07:10 AM

Good question, Bob Arctor. Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by: Freedom1 [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 15, 2006 04:52 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?
(you may use HTML tags for style)