This AP article by Jennifer Loven came up in the spin thread, where Kevin McDonnell called it an attempt to "respin a Kerry spin which Bush essentially un-spun, while accusing Bush of spinning!" LGF calls it a "nakedly biased editorial masqurading as news". Really? Here's what AP says:

President Bush opened several new scathing lines of attack against Democrat John Kerry, charges that twisted his rival's words on Iraq and made Kerry seem supportive of deposed dictator Saddam Hussein.

It was not unlike the spin that Kerry and his forces sometimes place on Bush's words. ..

[Bush] stated flatly that Kerry had said earlier in the week "he would prefer the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to the situation in Iraq today." The line drew gasps of surprise from Bush's audience in a Racine, Wis., park. "I just strongly disagree," the president said.

But Kerry never said that. In a speech at New York University on Monday, he called Saddam "a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell." He added, "The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure."

According to Bush, Kerry said that he would prefer to Saddam to chaos. AP claims that he didn't. This should be easy to check. Here's the text of Kerry's speech, and a few excerpts:

That day [9/11] brought to our shores the defining struggle of our times: the struggle between freedom and radical fundamentalism. And it made clear that our most important task is to fight...and to win...the war on terrorism. ..

The terrorists are beyond reason. We must destroy them. ..

We must have a great honest national debate on Iraq. The President claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight. ..

According to press reports, the intelligence estimate totally contradicts what the President is saying to the American people. So do the facts on the ground. Security is deteriorating, for us and for the Iraqis. ..

Yes, there has been some progress, thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our soldiers and civilians in Iraq. Schools, shops and hospitals have been opened. In parts of Iraq, normalcy actually prevails.

But most Iraqis have lost faith in our ability to deliver meaningful improvements to their lives. So they're sitting on the fence...instead of siding with us against the insurgents. ..

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure. ..

Can anyone seriously say this President has handled Iraq in a way that makes us stronger in the war on terrorism? ..

Two years ago, Congress was right to give the President the authority to use force to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. This President...any President...would have needed the threat of force to act effectively. This President misused that authority.

The power entrusted to the President gave him a strong hand to play in the international community. The idea was simple. We would get the weapons inspectors back in to verify whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And we would convince the world to speak with one voice to Saddam: disarm or be disarmed. ..

We need to turn the page and make a fresh start in Iraq. ..

If the President would move in this direction...if he would bring in more help from other countries to provide resources and forces ...train the Iraqis to provide their own security...develop a reconstruction plan that brings real benefits to the Iraqi people...and take the steps necessary to hold credible elections next year...we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring all our troops home within the next four years. ..

The president misled, miscalculated, and mismanaged every aspect of this undertaking and he has made the achievement of our objective—a stable Iraq, secure within its borders, with a representative government, harder to achieve. ..

I believe the invasion of Iraq has made us less secure and weaker in the war against terrorism. I have a plan to fight a smarter, more effective war on terror—and make us safer.

There's an articulate and coherent message here. Kerry attacks Bush on two fronts: 1) The invasion was wrong because it was a diversion from the war on terror, because Saddam Hussein did not have a nuclear programme, and because there were better ways Bush could have ensured that. And 2) Bush has handled the invasion and the rebuilding incompetently, leading to chaos, insecurity and loss of American life.

This is a message I mostly disagree with, but I have no problem understanding it. Kerry is projecting "I'm tough on terrorism" + "Iraq was a mistake". I have no idea if he really believes that, but it's a position I respect. And you really need your cognitive abilities in partisan mode to hear the words "I would prefer the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to the situation in Iraq today" in this speech. Kerry does criticize the decision to invade Iraq, and he does say that there is chaos in Iraq today, caused by Bush's incompetence, but he does not say that he opposes the invasion because there now is chaos. They're two separate lines of thought.

Bush may choose to interpret Kerry's words that way, when taken to their logical conclusion. But this falls in the same class of statements as when a left-winger attacks tax cut supporters on the right for wanting to subsidize the rich, (no they don't, they want to boost the economy), or when a right-winger attacks the left for wanting the government to run our lives (no they don't, they want to protect people against the market).

As an interpretation of ideas taken to their logical conclusion, this is fair. As a statement of what your opponents are actually saying, it is not. Important difference.

So I'm with AP on this one. They make a good attempt at even-handedness, too:

The e-mail from [Kerry] campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill accused the president of having "no plan to get us out of Iraq" and thinking "the future of Iraq is brighter than the future of America."

Bush has a plan for Iraq — Kerry just disagrees that it is working. And the president wasn't comparing Iraq's future to that of the United States, only accurately reflecting one recent survey in Iraq and the latest trends in America that asked participants for their assessment of the direction their countries are going.

Not bad for a "nakedly biased editorial". This is something the news media should do more of. We may disagree about the real implication of Kerry's words, but at least AP deserves praise for making an honest attempt at despinning Bush's and Kerry's rhetorics.

Update: Power Line responds to AP with an ad hominem. Seems the reporter's husband is an active Democrat. How is that relevant, and what is their proof that Jennifer Loven is on a covert smear campaign against Bush? Who cares - we're the blogosphere, and we've had our Watergate. We're above fairness.

For more denounciations of AP from the pro-Bush echo chamber, try this list.

Bjørn,

For the sake of setting some kind of watermark here, lets say that you are right in the proposition that AP was actually trying to make "an honest attempt at despinning Bush's and Kerry's rhetorics."

I would be willing to grant it based on their interpretation of what Bush said versus what Kerry said, even setting aside the fact that Kerry often makes statements that are readily interpretable (is that a word?) and "nuanced" (we don't need to go there again).

But all else aside, would this non-partisan blanket condemnation of spin, which I assume is intended to raise the level of the debate, then be appropriate when headlined as:

"Bush Twists Kerry's Words on Iraq".

Grant me this please. Many people see AP headlines and make conclusions about their content, and either merely skim, or barely glance at a story. This is a known thing, and the creation of strange headlines that seem divorced from their content (especially when the content says something very different... and which damages an icon of the left) has become an artform, and one that is duly noted by organizations like MRC.

Your comparison that the interpretation of the Saddam over chaos thing is quite like the subsidize the rich thing is persuasive, and I would be tempted to concede the whole argument were it not for the headline...

AND

... the strange intepretation the piece had regarding the "coerced and the bribed". That was pretty unequivocally an apologetic on the part of AP for Kerry and I think you would have to spin a bit to say otherwise... but maybe I missed something.

Note also that the "even handedness" you cite... is the last paragraph.

Finally, its worth noting that since I began writing this I note upon rechecking My Yahoo, that they have since changed the headline AND the content, and upon re-reading it, I am personally satisfied to call it a piece that does precisely what you said that it should.

The new headline is:

"Bush, Kerry Twisting Each Other's Words"

And the revised content can be found at:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040925/ap_on_el_pr/bush&cid=694&ncid=716

Our problem... is solved.

NOW I could agree with the spirit and the intent of what you would like to see the media do more of is here in this piece. Can they honor such an ethic though, without choking on their own ideological preconceptions?

That's a question.

Cheers,

KM

Actually... the AP piece still ticks me off, as I want to see EVERYONE held accountable for what they say... and made to explain if things are a bit too nuanced for meaningful consumption.

But then... maybe it ticks me off because I'm as "non-partisan" as the "mainstream press". ;-)

Cheers,

KM

Interesting article, I wonder when Kerry spoke so coherently. Possibly Bush was remarking on a TV appearance Kerry made. When Kerry was asked if he would have deposed Saddam, he answered, "No."

I'm not sure how AP can state that Bush is twisting Kerry's words, when Kerry's positions on issues change so often, he (Kerry) is actually twisting his own words.

I'm also beginning to wonder if Bjorn Staerk in Norwegian doesn't mean Andrew Sullivan? Is there a Norwegian equivalent for Provincetown?

Any ways, I was totally disgusted with Kerry's attack on Allawi. Thought it was very unstatesman like of Kerry to do such a thing so quickly.

Boy did Ali from Iraq The Model B-Slap Riverbend!

I know who I'm voting for in the upcoming election: Zontar the Space God from the UFO Party.

"Bush has handled the invasion and the rebuilding incompetently, leading to chaos, insecurity and loss of American life."

You mostly disagree with this??????????

It's now apparent that the administration's plans were more or less the following:

Plan A: let the Iraqis throw flowers at us for a while and then hand it off to Chalabi

Plan B: wonder why Plan A didn't work out, look for people to blame, keep the thing more or less from exploding until December 2004

Parsing time:

"[Bush] stated flatly that Kerry had said earlier in the week "he would prefer the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to the situation in Iraq today."

"Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. "
1. But only if the UN approves (Just kidding)
"But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war. "
2. We should not have removed Saddam unless it makes America more secure.
"we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure. .."
3. Implicit in this statement is the idea that he would prefer to keep America more secure.
4. The chaos that fallowed the removal of Saddam makes us less secure.
5. Kerry failed to lay out anything that could have avoided this chaos besides leaving Saddam in power.
6. Thus John Kerry would prefer Saddam in power instead of the chaos that fallowed.
Therefore: Kerry would prefer the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to the situation in Iraq today.

I could be wrong about this, but this does seem to be what Kerry was saying.
What do you think?

Lone Wolf

Kevin: ... the strange intepretation the piece had regarding the "coerced and the bribed". That was pretty unequivocally an apologetic on the part of AP for Kerry and I think you would have to spin a bit to say otherwise... but maybe I missed something.

I looked for the source of that quote, but didn't find it. AP claims Kerry said it in California in March 2003, but only the Bush version has made it to Google. I'll reserve judgment until I read the context.

Finally, its worth noting that since I began writing this I note upon rechecking My Yahoo, that they have since changed the headline AND the content, and upon re-reading it, I am personally satisfied to call it a piece that does precisely what you said that it should.

Hm, I only read the edited version. I wonder which version was closer to the original story the reporter wrote. Did an AP editor distort a fair report, and undistort it afterwards, or was new content added after pressure from readers?

Mister Ghost: I'm also beginning to wonder if Bjorn Staerk in Norwegian doesn't mean Andrew Sullivan? Is there a Norwegian equivalent for Provincetown?

Actually bearstrong means Bjørn Stærk in Norwegian. But: Huh?

Michael Farris: You mostly disagree with this??????????

Well, not the way I phrased it there. But I'm not impressed by Kerry's criticism. What exactly does he believe Bush should have done better? Kerry just lists every aspect of the invasion thas has gone less than good, and blames Bush for all of it. We both know it's not that simple. Even if Bush had invaded Iraq with a perfect plan for rebuilding it, many things would have gone wrong. We need to separate those problems Bush could have been expected to predict, from those which were unpredictable. Kerry, for obvious reasons, does not do this, and that's what I disagree with.

Lone Wolf: I could be wrong about this, but this does seem to be what Kerry was saying.

That depends on the meaning of "say", doesn't it? Because Kerry did not say this in the usual sense of the word, as Bush claims he did.

Nor did he imply it. Your chain of logic breaks at points 2 and 4. It's clear from the speech that Kerry opposes the invasion because it was unwarranted (no wmd's). He also disagrees with the way the invasion was handled, but these are logically separate ideas. Bush connects them in a way that clearly does not reflect Kerry's thoughts.

Bjorn:

So... YOU, FOREIGNER, present yourself as the ultimate arbiter of what a damned Yankee thinks?

"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians," said Mr. Kerry. "We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest."

- John Kerry, 1997 "Crossfire" CNN appearance.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm

Bjørn Stærk,

That depends on the meaning of "say", doesn't it? Because Kerry did not say this in the usual sense of the word, as Bush claims he did.
The meaning of the word "say" is to impart the same information or view that was stated by another. I. E. We should not punish children harshly = We should punish children lightly or not at all.

Nor did he imply it. Your chain of logic breaks at points 2 and 4. It's clear from the speech that Kerry opposes the invasion because it was unwarranted (no wmd's).

Where does Kerry say he opposed the invasion on that basis? The closest thing I can come to is this:
"Two years ago, Congress was right to give the President the authority to use force to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. This President...any President...would have needed the threat of force to act effectively. This President misused that authority."

This is clearly stating he was for giving the authority to invade only as a bargaining chip. Based on everything else he said, he opposed the invasion on the basis that is makes America less safe. Thus to Kerry it would be better to leave Saddam in power (Disarmed, but in power) then to invade and encounter chaos that distracted us from fighting al-quida.

He also disagrees with the way the invasion was handled, but these are logically separate ideas. Bush connects them in a way that clearly does not reflect Kerry's thoughts. "

The invasion and the results of the invasion are not things that can be separated. They are the cause (Invasion) and end effect (Saddam removed and chaos that resulted) of our actions. And according to the Senator, this Chaos has made America less safe and he implicitly opposes making America less safe. Thus he opposes the action that lead to both results. Removing this action from the equation would result in Saddam remaining in power. Bush statement was accurate as far as I can tell.

Lone Wolf

Bjørn,

One point worth commenting on. I agree completely that the updates on Powerline regarding the husband of the author is more than a bit creepy. I hate that kind of crap regardless of who says it, or what their politics are. That wasn't even worthy of being called an ad-hominem. It was a fallcy considerably higher on the scale of "likely to be utterly worthless as a source of illumination if not even merely disengenuous".

I read it and thought... "So... are the validities of any observations I might have on the nature of things, somehow suspect merely because of who I have chosen to sleep with?"

Say it ain't so!

Of course, in the interest of being curmudgeonly in the bigger dicussion... the way I processed the information was: "Ok so she married someone who clearly conforms to her own ideological dogma... thats no surprise considering the conformist nature of the dogma". ;-)

But thats just me... and I didn't need (or want) that information to know "where she stood" personally. It was already apparrant from the clear skew of the piece.

Cheers,

KM

One thing that Bjorn may or may not realize is how detailed the American blogosphere is getting regarding Bush. It's not just about W, it's republicans.

It could have been another pubbie doing the same thing and this would happen.

We know the MSM is in the tank for Kerry and by extension, the dems.

It's gotten so bad over here we look to placement.

If it's at the top of the fold, bad headline. Corrections are buried, the CBS story was in the back pages no one really reads, that kind of thing.

Articles that try to be "balanced" put the balance down near the end where most people don't read.

It's the spin.

And the AP - please.

My Friends!

It is nothing new from the designation of American President to manipulate others words or fabricate facts. Be it Clinton or Bush both avoided giving any worth to the power of truth.

It is skeptical if they ever observe the loss of faith in general public due to their double-speak or set of lies. The latest episode of twisting rival candidate John Kerry's speech is just another similar incident.

Soon, the main occupant of White House would be looked upon with an eye of distrust by the world community. At least the leaders and countries of international repute should take care and behave decently before going public.

Otherwise, who knows they will be taken as just another Tom, Dick and Harry !

Sandeep Datta, Delhi(India)
writing_guy7691@yahoo.co.in

Sandeep: How do you feel Indian leaders compare in this respect? Can you generally trust them?

Note that though I believe Bush is dishonest, that does not mean that I trust other world leaders. The Americans are fortunate enough to have an open and diverse political culture, where their leaders are scrutinized to a degree not common in many other democracies. So when Bush is dishonest, at least half the politically interested public (the other half) will know about it. They've got much to improve on, but, say, Norway is worse off.

In honor of Kevin :-)

"Dear Larry,
Last Thursday I put out one of my Bush/Cheney signs in my front yard. Between midnight and 3:00 a.m. someone stole it. On Friday night I put out sign No. 2. Since I didn't have to get up early, I thought my dog and I would "stake out" our sign. This time I put the sign a little closer to the gate leading to my backyard. With my dog on an extra long leash, I planted myself on a lawn chair and read "Unfit for Command" by flashlight until about 1:00 a.m. Here comes the fun part . . . I noticed that the car coming down the street was slowing down and pulling over to the curb right next to my yard. Sure enough, he gets out of his car and heads right for my sign. Just as he was about to uproot and desecrate it, I opened my gate and let my dog make the initial introduction! As he ran to hide behind the rear end of his car, I promptly moved to the driver-side door, which was still open. It was a fairly nice car with power everything and still running. While my dog continued to "introduce" herself, I rolled up the window and hit the power door lock button. With that, I slammed the door, grabbed my Bush sign and headed into the back yard.

And now for the "rest of the story." About 40 minutes later, I heard a knock at the door. I opened the door to one of our city's finest . . . the Vancouver Police Department. The officer asked me what was going on and when I told him, he could not stop laughing! I followed him out to the perp's car and stood there while he asked the guy a few more questions. Upon learning that the guy lived a couple of streets down, I -- knowing what was about to happen -- asked him, "Why do you have Oregon plates on your car if you live just down the street (here in Vancouver, Wash.)?" Larry, Oregon has no sales tax, so often Washington residents will buy and register cars in Oregon to avoid paying sales tax . . . it's a crime and the fine is pretty stiff. Here comes the best part. . . . The look on this guy's face told me he knew he was about to get busted. When the officer asked for his license and registration, the "Democrat" mumbled that (his license) was suspended. Just for kicks and giggles I asked the officer if he smelled any alcohol coming from the guy! The officer looked at me, smiled and promptly gave him a field breathalyzer test. Guess what? You got it, he blew a .10, legally drunk in the state of Washington.

DUI, illegal registration and the brand of "MORON," all 'cause he hates Bush!

Sincerely,

John

http://wizbangblog.com/archives/003766.php

Something similar happened to a neighbor of mine who put up a Bush/Cheney sign. He caught the guy redhanded, but was unable to lock him out of his car, unfortunately. Good story.

You know, that sounds like a typical Kerry voter. Intolerant, disorderly, and of course drunk--with or without the alcohol. And they don't hesitate to fabricate documents to prove their point.

Kerry really did say he preferred Saddam to chaos. If you know how to interpret his flipflops.

You know, not that this whole thread isn't highly volatile and subject to much in the way of interpretive "whatever-ness", but just for the record... what the hell is Kerry's present opinion on Iraq at the moment? Near as I can figure it... the last reported sighting of a Kerry position was on September 20th when he said that knowing what we know now, if it was his decision he would not have done it. (Now... mind you, there's more temporal anomalies in there then in a whole season of Star Trek episodes... but I at least get from it that when it comes to invading Iraq...he's against it.) Unless I missed something?

In any case, he cetainly did diss Allawi, there's no two ways about that. Parse it all you want, but between him and his staff they pretty much layed Allawi out as a poodle... De Villepin could not have done any better.

So anyway, regardless of whether he expressed a point that said he "preferred" Saddam to the strife thats there today... he would have preferred that the invasion not have happened... which makes all this parsing a bit academic.

"Essentially"... he does prefer that we would have left Saddam there... in light of what is there today... which he either cannot stomach or thinks will lead nowhere "worth it".

I'm a bit weary of debating whether he preferred chaos, or strife, or a battle for freedom, or War for Oil... or whatever. He would have preferred we didn't.

Doesn't that by definition mean that Saddam is his preference?

Who knows... maybe he's right.

But shouldn't that be his honest point of contention?

Or is it OK (as in "not spinning") to point out the difficulties of a bitter struggle... while still claiming the high ground of its potential upside... and yet not be responsible for any position at all.

Or again... have I missed something.

KM

Hey, Sandeep!

So, breaking bread w/the Pakis, eh?

I wonder if W had anything to do with that????

He must have told some doozies to Musharref and your PM to get them to actually talk, discuss trade and Kashmir.

Yup, dissed Allawi so much Biden had to clean up w/a big shovel and make promises that Cabana Boy might not keep.

Oh, goody, via LGF:

...Abderahmane himself said later that he while did not intend to promote violence or terrorism, it had to be said that Denmark was at war with an Islamic nation and that made its leaders legitimate targets according to Islam.

And what happened to your embassy in Sweden????

Give them what they want and they'll leave you alone, they promise.

I'm particulary snarky today.

As long as we're keeping score on the who is spinning the others spins more (admittedly a depressing pastime in any case... but I am admanent in maintaining that the proposition that Bush's team are the "master spinners" is absurd on its face).

To wit:
Today, Kerry ridiculed Bush for saying in a television interview that he had no regrets his speech aboard the aircraft carrier upon declaring major combat operations over — and would do it again. (Note for the spin books... this speech has become known as the "Mission Accomplished" speech in a fascinating case of myth building.)

Quoth Kerry today:
"Since he said that, over 900 have given their lives for the country. The mission was not accomplished when he said it."

Well John... how about saying a few more times that he said "IT". Even though you clearly know that in that speech not only did he not say IT... he stressed that there was a long way to go before the work was done.

As far as "it" goes, what he did was essentially congratulate the Armed Forces for what it arguably the cleanest, fastest and most impressive display of military efficacy in displacing a regime in the history of warfare. It seemed like an auspicious moment.

Yet IT... the mission accomplished, simple minded chimp, "lets go home now", idiocy meme... remains.

But alas... maybe I'm mixed up again. This may not be "spin" per se... this may be the more traditional "Big Lie" ala Goebbells approach. The Mainstream media just keep on saying it... I guess its "true" in a postmodern sense because, ya know... like Sandeep says... what people "perceive" is what counts.

Anyway... just making conversation.

G'nite

KM

Jennifer Loven's husband is more than an active Democrat. Her husband is a PAID SPOKESPERSON for the Kerry campaign on environmental issues, and the owner of an environmental consulting firm that stands to benefit from a Kerry victory.

That's such an obvious conflict of interest it doesn't merit further debate.

But has she let it affect her reporting? Yes. As the PL blog entry noted, she parrots her husband's views when reporting on environmental issues as a supposedly unbiased reporter.

She shouldn't be with 10 miles of presidential campaign coverage. That she is on that beat is a disgrace to the alleged professionalism of AP.

Bjorn, et al

You are aware, I assume, that JFK has said recently that Iraq was "...the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time." ( A steal of a Howard Dean line if I'm not mistaken )

Now, how can you possibly infer from that that Kerry wouldn't prefer to have Saddam in power right now? Do you believe that Saddam would be gone if we hadn't invaded?

So, Bush is absolutely correct that Kerry said he preferred Saddam to the current "chaos".

BTW Kerry has never said what the right war, place and time would have been. Should I infer from that that the answers are None, Nowhere and Never? Or is that spin?

BTW to Mr. Farris, the person that brought up Chalabi, all charges have been dropped by the Iraqi judge due to lack of evidence. Does that change your perceptions at all?

Someone wrote: a supposedly unbiased reporter.

Does such a thing really exist? The answer is quite obvious. There are no unbiased reporters in the world. Journalists are just like ordinary people, they have ideas, they have beliefs, they have opinions and all of this influences what they do and how they write. And, perhaps even more importantly, their ideas influence what they choose to write about.

Objective journalism is a fantasy. It can simply not exist. Sure, journalists can try to be objective - the current ideal of mainstream media - but they will never manage it. Very often the journalism that portrays itself to be unbiased and objective ends up being even more misleading. It becomes the truth, Pravda, when it is not.

The worst thing about this idea of objective journalism is however that it is not even a nice dream. Why should reporting be objective? Should one be objective when meating utter poverty, when writing about child abuse, when writing about victims of war? No! Journalism should be informative, provocative, compassionate, interesting, able to promote discussions. Journalists should not hide their subjectivity, but use it openly in telling their stories. That's the honest thing to do. It even makes better stories. And last, but not least, then people can decide for themselves.

Of course, reporting should be balanced. Journalists should talk to different people, not always the same expert from NUPI or RAND. They should let both - or all - sides in a conflict be heard. Of course, reporting should be honest, journalists should tell the truth.

But objective? Unbiased? It is impossible.

that is stupid to let bush say that commits about kerry i don't care about them but no more bush rock on

You may find it interesting to check some information about online roulette | online roulette | http://www.online-roulette-gambling-4u.info/ | how to play texas holdem poker | how to play texas holdem poker | http://www.how-to-play-texas-holdem-poker-games.info/ | holdem poker | holdem poker | http://www.holdem-poker-top-site.info/ | texas holdem poker downloads | texas holdem poker downloads | http://www.texas-holdem-poker-downloads-4u.info/ | turbo texas holdem | turbo texas holdem | http://www.turbo-texas-holdem-top-site.info/ | poker holdem | poker holdem | http://www.poker-holdem-games.info/ | texas holdem downloads | texas holdem downloads | http://www.texas-holdem-downloads-top-site.info/ | taxas holdem poker | taxas holdem poker | http://www.taxas-holdem-poker-games.info/ | ...

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/813