Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Fri 02/18/2005 View Thu 02/17/2005 View Wed 02/16/2005 View Tue 02/15/2005 View Mon 02/14/2005 View Sun 02/13/2005 View Sat 02/12/2005
1
2005-02-18 Syria-Lebanon-Iran
'America would back Israel attack on Iran'
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Bulldog 2005-02-18 4:09:56 AM|| || Front Page|| [11133 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Israelis are well aware of billionaire Rafsanjani's threats against Tel Aviv. The Mullah thief was prepping for something. Take out Qom and the nuke sites, and Teheran will become a graveyard for Islamofascists. The Persian tyrants are to decide whether or not to return spent nuclear fuel to Russia, next week. If they don't: SAY DOOM!
Posted by IToldYouSo 2005-02-18 4:45:05 AM||   2005-02-18 4:45:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Mr Bush was asked another question on Iran and appeared to return to his script - this time emphasizing the need for a diplomatic effort.

I guess their point the Telegraph wants to make is not Bush's point, but rather - See what happens when the silly little monkey strays from his script?

His comments appeared to be a departure from the administration’s line that there are no plans to attack at present and that Washington backs European diplomatic efforts

Here's a tip to the brain trust - the comment that our administration has "no plans to attack" and "we will support Israel if her security is threatened" are not inconsistent.

It is a pointed comment by Bush yes, but it's perfectly in line with "his administration's script", to support a country that is being threatened with annihilation by tyrants- as well as to continue diplomatic efforts.

Just a lame attempt to manipulate Bush's words to show him in a bad light, meant to poison the well before Bush's European visit.
Posted by 2b 2005-02-18 5:26:53 AM||   2005-02-18 5:26:53 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Just a lame attempt to manipulate Bush's words to show him in a bad light, meant to poison the well before Bush's European visit.

It would seem Bush is deliberately poisoning the well himself. Dunno why. Just a bargaining chip for the forthcoming Euro trip?
Posted by Jake-the-Peg 2005-02-18 6:02:36 AM||   2005-02-18 6:02:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 "His comments appeared to be a departure from the administration’s line that there are no plans to attack at present and that Washington backs European diplomatic efforts."

Clearly, the treacherous cowboy is preparing to betray naive Europeans!
Posted by gromgorru  2005-02-18 6:05:26 AM||   2005-02-18 6:05:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Read it again Jake:

"Clearly, if I was the leader of Israel and I’d listened to some of the statements by the Iranian ayatollahs that regarded the security of my country, I’d be concerned about Iran having a nuclear weapon as well. And in that Israel is our ally, and in that we’ve made a very strong commitment to support Israel, we will support Israel if her security is threatened."

That's kind of a no-brainer, it's no change in policy. What stirs it up is people who are duped into seeing like this is some sort of outrage or big deal.
Posted by 2b 2005-02-18 6:05:51 AM||   2005-02-18 6:05:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 
2b at #5 What stirs it up is people who are duped into seeing like this is some sort of outrage or big deal.

To EUros, Israel's existence is an outrage.
Posted by gromgorru  2005-02-18 6:08:00 AM||   2005-02-18 6:08:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Sadly you are right. This is just like a bad rerun of WWII. Iran plows ahead to build a nuke, that we all know will eventually be tested in Israel.

And the "intellectuals" of the world have hissy fits because they don't like the way Bush says nuclear.
Posted by 2b 2005-02-18 6:40:49 AM||   2005-02-18 6:40:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Um? Whats the story here? Hasn't it be the US policy to support Isreal and to even come to her aid if it attacked? Hasn't this been like this from at least the 1960? People are shocked when a president says so?
Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2005-02-18 6:43:17 AM|| [http://www.slhess.com]  2005-02-18 6:43:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 SPOD - so true! This article is big packaging for a little product.
Posted by 2b 2005-02-18 6:49:54 AM||   2005-02-18 6:49:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 More like packaging for no product at all. Wake me when the shooting starts.
Posted by AzCat 2005-02-18 7:07:18 AM||   2005-02-18 7:07:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#11  [i]More like packaging for no product at all. Wake me when the shooting starts.[/i]

The hell with that. I want to [i]be there[/i] when the shooting starts. Now if they can only hold off a fear or so . . .
Posted by Jame Retief  2005-02-18 7:46:34 AM||   2005-02-18 7:46:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 The point of the story is that Bush, at least personally, clearly would not object to, or try to prevent, self-defensive military action by Israel against Iran (a la Osirak) - which is a markedly different stance from Rice's recent (and unhelpful, IMO) suggestion that an attack on Iran is neither imminent nor on the US's agenda. At least from Iran's perspective, this is military action being put back on the table.
Posted by Bulldog  2005-02-18 8:21:05 AM||   2005-02-18 8:21:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 Hey, why not, if you're going to be accused of it anyways?
Posted by tu3031 2005-02-18 8:25:20 AM||   2005-02-18 8:25:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 Just heard on the radio that Putty is convinced that Iran harbors no weapons aspirations and Russia will continue to aid them in the pursuit of peaceful nuclear power. Sounds like the lines are being drawn...
Posted by JerseyMike 2005-02-18 8:43:23 AM||   2005-02-18 8:43:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 To me, the distinction is obvious: We're definitely not going to attack Iran IN THE SAME WAY that we attacked Iraq: No full scale invasion by US Troops with the intent of establishing a consenual, liberty respecting government, and being willing to wait out a long . That's what CONDI said.

What BUSH said was that he didn't object to ISRAEL performing a limited strike upon Iran with the intent of postponing the day that it will get nuclear weapons. That worked with Saddam's Iraq when Osirak was bombed, and will work here.

Two different things stupidly conflated by this particular MSM outlet.

I'm unsure of the motivation that created the conflation: Did the reporter see the difference and deliberately choose to create and propagate an illusion of Administration confusion where none exists out of hate (smart but evil), or did he just believe that the utterances of a chimp does not deserve the careful diplomatic parsing that someone of Chirac's, Schroeder's, or Clinton's background would have been knee-jerkedly accorded automatically? (dumb and confused) Either way, it's not very complimentary of the reporter or of his employer.

I use the word "he" in a generic sense: it has to be telling that the paper elected NOT to mention the reporter's name. I wonder why?
Posted by Ptah  2005-02-18 9:07:55 AM|| [http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]  2005-02-18 9:07:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 "...wait out a long occupation."

Preview is my friend.
Posted by Ptah  2005-02-18 9:08:41 AM|| [http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]  2005-02-18 9:08:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 So Pooty-Poot is convinced. Big deal -- Bush is also convinced that Iran will not have nuclear weapons. Let's note that common belief and work from there...

This is just like the lead-up to the war with Iraq. Everybody's posturing daily. But almost everybody recognizes the obvious -- Iran is not going to have nuclear weapons. What some people are mistaking for diplomacy is nothing more than waiting to be closer to the point of no return before striking. You cannot have diplomacy with someone who constantly refers to you as "The Great Satan". So it's UFOs today and cruise missiles in the not-too-distant future.
Posted by Tom 2005-02-18 9:17:32 AM||   2005-02-18 9:17:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 In order for Israel to attack Iran, they have to fly through Iraqi airspace. Which, of course, is currently the property of the United States Air Force. If we wished to oppose an Israeli attack, it would not happen.

If the Israelis do attack, it would not surprise me to find an AWACS or two, with a strong F-16 or F-18 CAP loitering along the Iraqi / Iranian border. And that we had the Israeli comm freqs and transponder codes (IFF). And that a bunch of guys in Blackhawks and a MASH were on standby for SAR.

I'm just sayin'.
Posted by Chuck Simmins  2005-02-18 9:18:18 AM|| [http://blog.simmins.org]  2005-02-18 9:18:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 Chuck,

You forgot Israeli mid-air fueling provided by the U.S. air tankers.

Sounds like a plan.
Posted by Poison Reverse 2005-02-18 9:31:15 AM||   2005-02-18 9:31:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 Two different things stupidly conflated by this particular MSM outlet.

Ptah, I don't see anywhere in the article where the two issues are conflated - they only appear to have been conflated by the earlier commentators.
Posted by Bulldog  2005-02-18 9:36:51 AM||   2005-02-18 9:36:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#21 Chuck you indirectly raise the one issue that I've never quite been able to work through: what happens in Iraq if the US overtly assists Israel in a strike on Iran? Celebrations in the streets? A massive uprising against the US presence? Nothing at all?
Posted by AzCat 2005-02-18 9:37:59 AM||   2005-02-18 9:37:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#22 I am sure the Iraqi Jews (yes they do exist) will have a private party.
Posted by Poison Reverse 2005-02-18 9:42:12 AM||   2005-02-18 9:42:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#23 Somebody show me where Bush said, "America Would Back Israel Attack on Iran" as the title of this article claims.

What Bush said, was this: "I’d be concerned about Iran having a nuclear weapon as well. And in that Israel is our ally, and in that we’ve made a very strong commitment to support Israel, we will support Israel if her security is threatened."

Now before commenting..go back and read it one more time! Not ONE WORD about an ATTACK by Israel or by us. That's not to say that this isn't a very pointed comment by Bush, or that any of the above interpretations are right or wrong. But the title is not supported by the article.

Wouldn't it have been wise, as a professional journalist, to check with White House sources and ask them what was meant by that before telling us what they thought it meant. Why is their interpretation any more meaningful than yours or mine?
Posted by 2b 2005-02-18 9:50:34 AM||   2005-02-18 9:50:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#24 Wouldn't a more correct title have been, "Bush reaffirms commitment to support Israel".

The title is intended to inflame and is supported only by innuendo.
Posted by 2b 2005-02-18 9:56:34 AM||   2005-02-18 9:56:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#25 The title is intended to inflame and is supported only by innuendo.

I think you should check with the Telegraph before telling us what you think they're doing.

You don't seem to be as well versed as Bush in the language of diplomacy if you think the first paragraph of the article doesn't support the title.
Posted by Bulldog  2005-02-18 10:06:01 AM||   2005-02-18 10:06:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#26 Step back and get a grip, Bulldog. Iran is perhaps just months away for getting the potential to nuke Israel. If the Telegraph wants to parse through the language of diplospeak then where are the headlines saying, "Mullahs Make Plans to Nuke Israel" ???

do I hear crickets chirping?

Bush publically affirms support for Israel's right to exist and WAHOH!!STOP THE PRESSES!!! There's a madman on the loose.

Hmmm...let me see - one country has "through the language of diplospeak" as you say, made it clear that nuking Israel is a viable option. Euro reacion: Hear that wind blow.

Bush affirms support for the right of Israel to protect itself. Reaction: The entire European Continent and our left shrieks in fear and dives for the bunkers.

Makes sense. Not much sense though.
Posted by 2b 2005-02-18 10:32:42 AM||   2005-02-18 10:32:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#27 I find your comments very diheartening Bulldog. You're a smart guy, I respect your opinions, yet even you seem to be buying into the crazy notion of finding more to fear in Bush's comments than in the Mullahs getting a bomb. I just don't understand it.
Posted by 2b 2005-02-18 10:59:45 AM||   2005-02-18 10:59:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#28 If they don't: SAY DOOM!

Okay, "doom".

Now what?
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-02-18 11:22:56 AM||   2005-02-18 11:22:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#29 No attack on Iran would be complete without removing the head of the Iranian thugocracy, the Mullahs.
Posted by badanov  2005-02-18 11:29:26 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org]  2005-02-18 11:29:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#30 That's the difference between our media and theirs. We allow argument, they don't. Regardless, it's no secret we're going to support Israel in any thing they do. Like it's no secret there's no way in hell we'll let Iran have nuclear weapons. I think 2b's right about this being published intentionally just before the President's European trip. While he's there he might consider putting Putin on notice he could be held responsible for aiding/sponsoring terrorism.
Posted by shellback 2005-02-18 11:32:01 AM||   2005-02-18 11:32:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#31 On this, like Osiraik, the Israelis do not want out help, do not need our help except diplomatically (against all the condemnations that will follow) and probably think we are a security risk for leaking info.

If/When the Israeli's have a go at Iran's nuclear program, it will be, as usual, up and over TURKISH airspace, by way of the Med.and there will likely be Israeli ships standing by for SAR support at the mouth of the Persian Gulf (probably coverts, like an Israaeli crewed merchant ship thats flagged in a 3rd world nation of convenience).

An alternative is an Entebbe style operation to set up a temporary airbase someplace in the region, at which the fighter/bombers can stage forward into the attack, with the SAR as above.

Given that their very existence is at stake, they would sacrifice men (volunteers not hard to come by for them) to get these nukes.

Bush's words simply say that if the Israelis do go after the Iranian nukes, then we understand why and will support them in the aftermath. Much as we have always done.
Posted by OldSpook 2005-02-18 11:33:17 AM||   2005-02-18 11:33:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#32 2b - I think you're reading waaaay too much between the lines of one page 16 article in the Telegraph. The headline is simply a valid, and also eyecatching, interpretation of Bush's comments re Iran.

The Telegraph does not have an anti-Bush agenda - in fact, it gave its endorsement to George Bush last November. Its editorials are consistently pro-Bush and pro-WoT.

...you seem to be buying into the crazy notion of finding more to fear in Bush's comments than in the Mullahs getting a bomb.

Bush's language definitely suggested that he would have no problem if Israel decided to preemptively strike Iran. You're wrongly assuming that I or The Telegraph thinks there's anything wrong with that.
Posted by Bulldog  2005-02-18 11:53:29 AM||   2005-02-18 11:53:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#33 Page 16, hmmm...maybe I am reading too much into it as being a deeply laid plot. But the whole, "departing from the script" was certainly a gratuitous swipe. A more professional headline would have reflected what Bush said, rather than, wink, wink, what we are all pretty sure that he meant.

"Israel Faces Increased Nuclear Threat, Bush Reaffirms Support" would have been far more informative.
Posted by 2b 2005-02-18 12:11:40 PM||   2005-02-18 12:11:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 The "Magnificent Seven" came up with and have used the Machiavellian-Clintonian tactic of syntax.

DEPENDS ON WHAT THE MEANING OF "WE" IS

i.e. We have no plans to attack -GWB
{wink-wink-nudge-nudge to Israel}

The 7 :
Bush - Cheney - Rice - Rumsfeld - Goss - Chertoff - Negroponte
Posted by BigEd 2005-02-18 12:33:18 PM||   2005-02-18 12:33:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 Ashoura festival perversity, with its hacking of flesh and demonstrative bleeding, is an excellent background for a big-snuff of Eastern savages.

IAmTellingYouNow: the Arab-Persian split spin is contradicted by the cultural unity that was displayed at last year's Ashoura, when up to 15,000 Persians made pilgrimage to Iraq, daily. Once indulged, Jafaari will engineer political union with Iran and Syria, and conduce a march to Jerusalem, under black flags as is prophecied in Islamic Hadith. All they need is a leader, from Khurasaan, to complete the cartoon.

So what's the knee jerk reply? We have to respect Iraqis democratic choice, blah, blah. Yeah, like we respected the German peoples' delusional support for Rafsanjani's political clone: Adolf Hitler. Give me the button.
Posted by IToldYouSo 2005-02-18 1:58:24 PM||   2005-02-18 1:58:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 fnord mood
Posted by Shipman 2005-02-18 2:09:22 PM||   2005-02-18 2:09:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 Today's menu:

Shias whacking themselves with chains, splitting open their scalps

Versus

Sunnis blowing into a thousand tiny pieces Iraqi women with kids in their arms, Iraqi dads braving insurgents by being in security forces, and Americans fighting for better lives for everyone.

Hmmm...which sounds more appetizing?
Posted by Jules 187 2005-02-18 2:09:25 PM||   2005-02-18 2:09:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 Are going to nuke Christians too, ITYS?
http://www.allaahuakbar.net/image/christian_shias.jpg
Posted by Tom 2005-02-18 2:10:03 PM||   2005-02-18 2:10:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 ITYS - WTF???
Posted by Desert Blondie 2005-02-18 2:15:49 PM|| [http://azjetsetchick.blogspot.com]  2005-02-18 2:15:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 Old Spook, I usually agree with you, but this time I have a question. I've been out of the air strike business for quite awhile, but I don't think that the Israeli F15I has the legs to strike all the Iranian sites from Turkish airspace, even if they top off from the Israeli KC-707s before ingress. Bushehr and Saghand in particular seem beyond the max combat radius. Of course, recovery in Iraq and/or Afghanistan would solve that problem. What am I missing here?
Posted by RWV 2005-02-18 2:40:15 PM||   2005-02-18 2:40:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 IToldYouSo, that's SAY BOOM! not SAY DOOM!
Posted by RWV 2005-02-18 2:41:57 PM||   2005-02-18 2:41:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 You are looking for round trip. Think of it one-way with an ejection over the gulf. With 2 tankings (full load of external fuel is heavy - so one tank right after takeoff, one right before feet dry - or maybe even slightly overland in Turkish airspace for the topoff), and wing mounted tanks, rest of the aircraft slick except for 2 AAM (AMRAAM?) and the bomb needed in conformal store - or rigged to be a bit more aerodynamic. Remeber the terrain favors northern approaches with the mountains and valleys for TF flight inbound, then gun it over the flats in the south at 50 feet. OR coudl even do it the navy way - rig wing refuel tanks on a 15 as a milch cow and use a chute and drogue (if you could rig the input pipe on the 15).

Yeah, they'd be dropping a lot of hardware in the drink or into a mountain, but consider the cost if they fail to eliminate nukes in the mullahs hands.
Posted by OldSpook 2005-02-18 5:03:07 PM||   2005-02-18 5:03:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 Israel shouldn't be willingly ejecting its best pilots for the likes of the mullahs and their nukes. This is an exercise best left to sub-launched cruise missiles.
Posted by Tom 2005-02-18 5:08:51 PM||   2005-02-18 5:08:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 Israels got IRBMs with skeery payloads as well, if they are desperate enough they could just use them...
Posted by Laurence of the Rats  2005-02-18 5:19:17 PM|| [http://www.punictreachery.com/]  2005-02-18 5:19:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 The Israelis are working on autonomous long range bombers. Development seems well advanced. And BTW they fly over Saudi Arabia to reach Iran.
Posted by phil_b 2005-02-18 5:46:08 PM||   2005-02-18 5:46:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 My question is if Iran does end up nuking Isreal, what will they do about Jerusalem since it's the capital? Are they really going to destroy the 3rd most sacred place in Islam and risk being impaled by their own people?
Posted by Charles  2005-02-18 5:57:50 PM||   2005-02-18 5:57:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 risk being impaled by their own people?

they already are looking warily at lamp posts...this would be a "hope they're distracted" moment
Posted by Frank G  2005-02-18 6:10:24 PM||   2005-02-18 6:10:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 They'd go for Tel Aviv instead.
Posted by Rex Mundi 2005-02-18 6:13:10 PM||   2005-02-18 6:13:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 I think the mullahs realize they'd have to kill the entire country and arsenal of Israel, or Qom, Tehran, Mecca, Jiddah, et al would be another "never again" reminder. The Jooooos would have nothing to lose.
Posted by Frank G  2005-02-18 6:20:54 PM||   2005-02-18 6:20:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 Sec Defense said something a bit troubling in the hearings today. When asked (was it by Levin - anyway) why they needed the special bunker busters he said something like this:
Well ya know, its like this... lots of stuff in this world today is dual use. One of the more common dual use items is cheap and efficent good tunneling equipment. Stuff that can go down deep like the chunnel. And its good equipment. And there is lots of it. A typical one can dig you a tunnel the height of 2 basketball hoops and three or four lanes wide. And everybody is buying it. Now some of these countries ... even some of them in the axis of evil , well, have been buying a lot of these machines... They like to do stuff down deep where we can't see it. The entrances might be nowhere near where the interesting work is... That makes a problem for us ...... because the conventional weaponry can't accurately get down deep where they are and the bigger stuff, why it makes a mess of everything and might not even take out what's down there. Of course one could use enough to make sure but that's really really sloppy. ... so we need some .. some.. way to get down there and take it out in a way thats not quite so messy. So that's what we are really up to here and on top of it this is only a study. We are not in anyway ready to add such a device in large numbers to our inventory. If you have more questions I would be more than happy to discuss it with you in a more restricted or secure session.


Again its my memory without notes at the time so I am sure I colored it a bit.... The sentiment is still pretty correct.
Posted by 3dc 2005-02-18 6:53:41 PM||   2005-02-18 6:53:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 On this, like Osiraik, the Israelis do not want out help, do not need our help except diplomatically (against all the condemnations that will follow) and probably think we are a security risk for leaking info.

If/When the Israeli's have a go at Iran's nuclear program, it will be, as usual, up and over TURKISH airspace, by way of the Med.and there will likely be Israeli ships standing by for SAR support at the mouth of the Persian Gulf (probably coverts, like an Israaeli crewed merchant ship thats flagged in a 3rd world nation of convenience).

An alternative is an Entebbe style operation to set up a temporary airbase someplace in the region, at which the fighter/bombers can stage forward into the attack, with the SAR as above.

Given that their very existence is at stake, they would sacrifice men (volunteers not hard to come by for them) to get these nukes.

Bush's words simply say that if the Israelis do go after the Iranian nukes, then we understand why and will support them in the aftermath. Much as we have always done.
Posted by OldSpook 2005-02-18 11:33:17 AM||   2005-02-18 11:33:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#52 You are looking for round trip. Think of it one-way with an ejection over the gulf. With 2 tankings (full load of external fuel is heavy - so one tank right after takeoff, one right before feet dry - or maybe even slightly overland in Turkish airspace for the topoff), and wing mounted tanks, rest of the aircraft slick except for 2 AAM (AMRAAM?) and the bomb needed in conformal store - or rigged to be a bit more aerodynamic. Remeber the terrain favors northern approaches with the mountains and valleys for TF flight inbound, then gun it over the flats in the south at 50 feet. OR coudl even do it the navy way - rig wing refuel tanks on a 15 as a milch cow and use a chute and drogue (if you could rig the input pipe on the 15).

Yeah, they'd be dropping a lot of hardware in the drink or into a mountain, but consider the cost if they fail to eliminate nukes in the mullahs hands.
Posted by OldSpook 2005-02-18 5:03:07 PM||   2005-02-18 5:03:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#53 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]
Posted by OldSpook 2005-02-18 11:33:17 AM||   2005-02-18 11:33:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#54 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]
Posted by OldSpook 2005-02-18 5:03:07 PM||   2005-02-18 5:03:07 PM|| Front Page Top

23:31 Atomic Conspiracy
23:25 Phil Fraering
23:20 Sobiesky
23:19 DMFD
23:14 Phil Fraering
23:09 DMFD
23:08 JosephMendiola
23:06 Phil Fraering
23:05 Atomic Conspiracy
23:04 Phil Fraering
22:56 2b
22:54 trailing wife
22:53 Barbara Skolaut
22:49 CrazyFool
22:46 Eris
22:41 trailing wife
22:41 SwissTex
22:40 Jame Retief
22:39 trailing wife
22:33 JosephMendiola
22:20 badanov
22:20 trailing wife
22:19 SwissTex
22:14 Frank G









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com