Former Ambassador to Pakistan Milam: “I had a pretty good idea of what failed states look like, and it was not one.”
During Friday’s presidential debate, John McCain tried repeatedly to portray Barack Obama as an inexperienced empty suit who didn’t “understand” major issues. One such issue which, according to McCain, Obama didn’t understand was the 1999 coup that brought General Pervez Musharraf to power in Pakistan. According to McCain, Pakistan was a failed state in 1999. But William Milan, US Ambassador to Pakistan at the time of the coup, told me via email that it’s McCain who doesn’t understand. “Having come to Pakistan from Liberia a year before the takeover,” he told me “I had a pretty good idea of what failed states look like, and it was not one.”
Speaking at the debate, McCain made the very strong claim that “everybody who was around” knew that Pakistan was a failed state, and that disagreement on this point wasn’t merely a matter of opinion. “I don’t think that Senator Obama understands that there was a failed state in Pakistan when Musharraf came to power,” he said “everybody who was around then, and had been there, and knew about it knew that it was a failed state.”
I asked Ambassador Milam about that as he was certainly “around then” and “had been there” and so I figured he’d be in a position to know. His response, in full:
There are a number of interesting books, including a forthcoming one by me, that cover the 1999 coup by the Musharraf-led army. You might want to look at those already published by Steve Cohen, Hasan Abbas, Hussain Haqqani (long before he became the present Pakistani Ambassador), and especially Ian Talbot’s updated history of Pakistan.
I think that all of them would agree that, while there were a lot of things wrong in Pakistan during the years leading up to the 1999
military takeover, Pakistan was not a failed state as we normally define such states. I am on record as stating publicly that, having come to Pakistan from Liberia a year before the takeover, I had a pretty good idea of what failed states look like, and it was not one.
This leaves McCain’s attacks looking more than a little threadbare.
68 Responses to “Former Ambassador to Pakistan Milam: “I had a pretty good idea of what failed states look like, and it was not one.””
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 30th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
A bit more discussion of actual criteria, rather than Man of Authority says Oh No It Wasn’t, would be more interesting here.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
This leaves McCain’s attacks looking more than a little threadbare.
you should make a keyboard macro for that. you’re gonna need it.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
“I had a pretty good idea of what failed states look like”
So he’s a failed state elitist.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
OTOH, McCain’s family (mother’s side) is from Mississippi, so he has some familial familiarity with what failed states look like, too.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Quotes such as this one would have helped had they been aired on network newscasts on Saturday. But such timely reporting is something our M$M no longer does, unfortunately. So again Mc Cain gets away with telling yet another lie to the mostly uninformed, undecided voter.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
“A bit more discussion of actual criteria, rather than Man of Authority says Oh No It Wasn’t, would be more interesting here.”
He cited three books you could read on the subject, if you were really interested in more discussion.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
My interest in politics began in earnest during an internship during college way back when.
I have a pretty good idea of what failed campaigns look like, and McCain’s is one.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Fair enough Joel, but it’s that useful middle ground between no information and off you go to the university library with a list of books is that I usually want from MY.com.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
I’m so glad to finally see this issue taken up. I was incredulous when I heard Sen. McCain say that Pakistan was a failed state, not only because I knew it was false; not only because it belied his supposed superior understanding of foreign policy; not only because I’m biased toward Sen. Obama. I was mostly angry because he used this very misunderstanding to justify the (in his mind, inevitable) coup and our post - 9/11 coddling of Musharraf. The man adjusts reality to conform to his epic paradigm. That’s scary in a time when we need some sober foreign policy.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Joel, since Milam himself has also written a book on the subject, he could just as easily included the criteria in his email to Matt. Maybe you have the time to find & read 3 lengthy, probably dry & difficult for laymen to understand books, but I doubt Otto or I or most of us here do. Now, do you have anything of substance to add, or do you specialise in put-downs?
September 30th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Look, McCain said that “everybody who was around then, and had been there, and knew about it knew that it was a failed state.” I think we can take it on the authority of the Ambassador that this is false.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
No, no, no, McCain said it was a veiled state. He was referring metaphorically to the lack of full political transparency, as well as making a witty but oblique reference to its Islamic nature. You are being totally unfair to him.
Can I be Rick Davis now?
September 30th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Is this ‘myglesias’ character our host himself?
September 30th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
“Now, do you have anything of substance to add, or do you specialise in put-downs?”
Pot, kettle, black, etc
Heh.
September 30th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_state
September 30th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Matt, you’re so stuck in the Reality Based Community. Don’t you know, when a Republican says something, reality automatically adjusts itself to make the statement true. Fortunately, reality has a really good clutch and can go from forward to reverse almost instantaneously. Of course, McCain is working that clutch really hard. I guess we’ll see how quickly reality can adjust. Right now, it only takes two sentences for McCain to contradict himself. If he shortens that to a single sentence, reality might not be able to keep up.
September 30th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
I’m afraid Matt Y. is being a bit of a prig here. Let me see if I can help. When McCain said “everybody who was around” knew that Pakistan was a failed state, what he meant was that “everyone whom I consider important, namely me, knew that Pakistan was a failed state”.
September 30th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
All I know is I have now seen McCain manage to upset two countries i.e. Spain a few days ago.
September 30th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Once again, most of this is irrelevant, when both McCain and Obama basically want to start a war with Pakistan due to their ineptness - or in McCain’s case, love of war - in dealing with the situations in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
ANY expansion of the war in either country is going to fail and cause more problems. What is required is an immediate effort to dump Karzai, negotiate with the Taliban and bring them into the Afghan government in some sort of coalition, then an immediate pullout of US and NATO troops, and a complete abandonment of any interference in Pakistan. Beyond that, some form of ramping up aid to politically neutral NGO’s via the UN, while keeping the US at arm’s length, might be useful in damping down radicalism in those two poor countries.
Dealing with Al Qaeda per se is a law enforcement and counterintelligence project, not a military one. Once the US is gone from Afghanistan, the Afghan Taliban won’t give a damn about the West. Once the US stops trying to control Pakistan, neither will the Pakistani Taliban. They become Pakistan’s problem, and Pakistan is much better suited to dealing with it than the US is.
September 30th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Speculation: I’m thinking that maybe McCain wasn’t really thinking about state failure, but rather just accidentally revealing some of his feelings about government and democracy.
Nawaz Sharif’s crew, the PML are basically the corrupt Islamic theocratic party of Pakistan. Sharif was a figure something like Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, or the like. These analogies might not be very close, but I don’t think McCain is exactly a Pakistan expert (not that I am either), so detailed fidelity to the actual situation in Pakistani politics isn’t needed in order to baselessly speculate about McCain’s motives.
Musharraf, by contrast, was a military officer, who spent his whole adult life in the army before taking over the country.
Basically, McCain doesn’t like Sharif, just as he doesn’t like his counterparts in American politics like Robertson, Dobson, Reed, etc. He likes Musharraf more, because he thinks militarism is awesome.
What about democracy? The fact that Sharif was elected, while Musharraf attained power by a military coup? Well, I think that McCain just doesn’t really care all that much. He doesn’t oppose democracy, but he doesn’t really support it, either. He supports the right people being in charge. If democracy puts the right people in charge, good for democracy. If it puts the wrong people in charge, then too bad for democracy. If a military coup puts the right people in charge, good for military dictatorship.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
In fairness to McCain, I guess I should say that Nawaz Sharif’s rule wasn’t exactly a model of good government. But in fairness to Sharif, there hasn’t been a decent government in South Asia since Akbar the Great. But still, Sharif’s government was the normal corrupt and dysfunctional government that you would expect, not a failed state. If India ever had a better government, I might accept McCain’s judgment. I’m still not sure how India survives, and I’ve spent a lot of time there. But it does, and it’s not because of the government.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Julian, I think that’s pretty good description of McCain. If we could combine that mentality with competence and knowledge, we might get a good leader. But McCain only goes 1 for 3 on that.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Note: in McCain’s defense, I don’t think that there’s anything wrong with regarding some values as more important than democracy; in fact, I’d say most decent people would agree that democracy is not the be-all, end-all of legitimate governance. I think most people would agree that 50.01% of the population voting for killing all the Mormons or something doesn’t justify such an atrocity.
However, most people would probably say that values more important than democracy should be protected with institutional safeguards, a political culture which puts certain illiberal forms of democracy out of bounds, civil society, etc. I think McCain might believe that values more important than democracy should be protected by people of integrity — i.e., individuals who are honorable, selfless, and virtuous.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Re: But in fairness to Sharif, there hasn’t been a decent government in South Asia since Akbar the Great.
Huh???
Come on now. Nehru was a pretty damn good leader. Several of the state governments in India, especially the Communists down south in Kerala, did quite a bit of good for their people. There were also some decent rulers of a couple of the princely states. Comparing India to Pakistan’s record of governance is just silly.
It’s not even as if _all_ Pakistani leaders have sucked. For all that Jinnah was a conniving SOB, he was also a decent leader for his country, and Pakistan might be a much better place today had he survived.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
“Once the US stops trying to control Pakistan, neither will the Pakistani Taliban.”
Umm, really? Can you elaborate? I guess the argument would be that they only want to control the rural areas that they already control. But the real money is in Karachi and Islamabad. Why wouldn’t they want to control that? Why would they just stop with with they already have?
September 30th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Re: He doesn’t oppose democracy, but he doesn’t really support it, either. He supports the right people being in charge. If democracy puts the right people in charge, good for democracy. If it puts the wrong people in charge, then too bad for democracy. If a military coup puts the right people in charge, good for military dictatorship.
Well, that seems like just common sense to me. Democracy is a means, not an end. If it fails to effectively achieve the end, then it needs to be jettisoned, as indeed happened in Pakistan.
The ‘democratic’ parties in Pakistan committed an act of criminal irresponsibility, bordering on treason, when they demanded the General step aside. Liberal democracy simply cannot work in Pakistan. Military rule is the only thing that can keep the country out of Islamist hands, and anyone who worked to undermine military rule was working, knowingly or unknowingly, for the downfall of the nation.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Why doesn’t the American Media talk about the third contendor in the presidential race? Is this your democracy?
September 30th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Hector, that’s all fine, but you can get back to me when either of those countries can develop a better economy than Thailand. India’s running only a little behind Cambodia now, but it doesn’t have the potential that Cambodia has (they’ve got oil). All India has is the potential that a small minority could reach American level prosperity while the rest of the country can barely eat. Half the country makes less than 50 rupees a day. Half the country can’t read. Let’s put it this way: when people ask me about traveling to India, I tell them to go to a practice country first. And I tell them that Cambodia is a good one. Not as screwed up as India, but close enough to give you an idea what screwed up is like. I’ve never been to Pakistan, but from what I’ve heard, it isn’t any worse.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
“Why doesn’t the American Media talk about the third contendor in the presidential race?”
Who do you have in mind? Ralph Nader? Bob Barr? Chuck Baldwin? Cynthia McKinney? All of them? Someone else?
September 30th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
“Why doesn’t the American Media talk about the third contendor in the presidential race?”
There’s a third contender? Who would that be? I’ve got three guesses: Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, and me. Which one is it? But let’s face it, if we don’t know who it is, how is this person a contender?
September 30th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Well, Hector, my answer is basically that yes, there are values more important than Democracy (hereafter VMITD), as I allude to in post #23. I would say that those values should be protected by institutionalized respect for the rule of law, a liberal political culture, etc. McCain (and I suppose you) would say that it should be protected by great and virtuous men.
Of course, perhaps the ideal would be for both to do it, but I believe that a country in which the military feels free to overthrow the legal government is one which will never have the opportunity to develop the more reliable guardians of VMITD that I refer to (cultural, institutional, etc).
Since the military dictators serving as guardians of VMITD are strangling the more permanent, impersonal guardians of VMITD in the cradle, that leaves those values dependent on Pakistan’s Great Men, which are not very reliable guardians of VMITD. It’s not as if Zia-ul-Haq’s military dictatorship was a dam stemming the tide of Islamic theocracy that democracy would have ushered in, after all.
That, and I think democracy does have intrinsic value. It’s not the sole source of legitimacy in a government, as I allude to when talking about VMITD, but it is an important one. You can disagree with me, there, but, as Groucho Marx is alleged to have said in a poorly sourced by widely circulated quote, those are my principles; if you don’t like them, I have others.
September 30th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
“I’ve never been to Pakistan, but from what I’ve heard, it isn’t any worse.”
I guess I should note that Pakistan’s level of education is much higher than that of India. They are educated enough that they have a chance at becoming a developing country if they have a stable government and stable economy. India will probably always be a Third World country. Getting out of the Third World starts with one thing: learning how to read. Until India tries that approach, they are doomed.
September 30th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
“but I believe that a country in which the military feels free to overthrow the legal government is one which will never have the opportunity to develop the more reliable guardians of VMITD that I refer to”
You know, that sems like a reasonable proposition. But what about Thailand? They’re prosperous, but they have coups all the time. It’s their normal way of changing governments.
September 30th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
In general, failed states don’t get ‘un-failed’ by army takeovers. Failed states don’t typically have that kind of coherent military structure. (I’m not comfortable with the term per se, but if you throw it at Somalia, Sudan, DR Congo, etc., you associate it with both an broken central government and an ineffective national military. So, Iraq and Afghanistan also apply.)
If, post-Mushy, the institutional behemoth that is the Pakistan Army were to collapse, Pakistan would get very very scary.
[Shorter Hector: "absolute monarchy, 'anointed by God', is the ideal model. I made my Crusader sword out of tin-foil."]
September 30th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Note: according to the CIA world factbook, India’s literacy is 61% (73.4% male, 47.8% female). Pakistan’s literacy is 49.9% (63% male, 36% female). Average schooling is also longer in India. Also, Indians live an average of five years longer (69 years) than Pakistanis (64). (Incidentally, Cambodians have an average life expectancy of a bit less than 62 years, although their literacy is a relative impressive 73.6%, given that literacy was regarded as an all-but-capital offense 30 years ago) Do you think that these figures are way, way wrong? (I mean, the CIA does have a chequered record when it comes to assessing foreign countries…)
As for Thailand, I’m no expert, but it seems to me that their political system is scarily dependent on the subtle machinations of King Bhumibol, who, though long-lived, is mortal. Once again, we see dependence on the benevolence and wisdom of an individual, albeit one who exerts a more subtle influence that that of, say, the president of Pakistan. That is to the extent that one even regards the Thai government as being particularly acceptable in comparison to other intermittently democratic states like Turkey, etc.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Fostert,
Are you smoking something? _Cambodia_?? India has more than its share of problems, but they didn’t indulge in a national orgy of bloodshed that killed a third of the population, and then turn on the country that liberated them in an internecine and pointless civil war. If you wanted to compare India unfavorably to Viet Nam, you might have an arguable point. But to bring up Cambodia just makes it hard to take you seriously.
India’s literacy rate is undoubtedly lower than the statistics suggest, but I would suspect it is still higher than Pakistan’s. Literacy is very high in the south, and much lower in the north. Their national university system is excellent, in contrast with Pakistan’s. As Mr. Elson points out, they have a higher life expectancy than Pakistan, and a much bigger industrial, agricultural and natural-resource base.
I also wouldn’t say that Thailand has coups “all the time”. There was an interval of 15 years between the last two.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
“Do you think that these figures are way, way wrong?”
Not sure about that, but the CIA probably has better knowledge than I (I would hope so at least). What I’ve noticed is that India’s literacy is not as good as they say it is. I’m being generous with the 50% number. I guess I’ve always accepted the normal stats for Pakistan, while I have empirical evidence to the contrary with India. In reality, both numbers are probably very inflated. But talking to people who have been to both countries, most of them say that the Pakistanis are better educated. But let’s face it, it’s not really saying much. It’s not like anyone learned algebra. And high school level physics totally out of the question for the vast majority of people in both countries. Basically, the Pakistanis are more likely than Indians to know two languages. Not surprising when the official language is native to only a small minority of the people.
As for Thailand, that’s a fair description. I really worry what will happen when His Majesty dies. In comparison to Turkey, Turkey has a much better situation. They’re on their own and have no king to save them. And they know it. They’re still working out the whole human rights thing, but they’re on the right path and I don’t think the military will take over again.
In Thailand, the military will take over within two years. And that’s assuming His Majesty is still alive. When he dies, there will be an extra coup, outside of the normal coups. But coups don’t really matter that much in Thailand. The economy still works, and life goes on. The real power in Thailand rests in the mafias, and they will always exist. As for human rights in Thailand, well it’s fine if you have the money to pay for them. Otherwise, well, not so good. But at least you’ll only be sold off as a sex slave rather than for body parts, like in India. In India, they’ll rip your heart out while you’re still alive because the heart stays fresher that way. Sucks to be a Dalit with no money in India.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
“I also wouldn’t say that Thailand has coups “all the time”. There was an interval of 15 years between the last two.”
That would be the longest interval in modern Thai history. On average, there’s a coup every five years.
As for Cambodia, I’d suggest you go there yourself. The Khmer Rouge era was certainly nasty (worst ever), but you should consider the fact that our bombing killed nearly a million people before the KR even got started. Imagine how India would fare if we killed 150 million people (I’m using the same population ratio here) and then installed a fascist government. Probably no better than Cambodia, and I’d guess much worse.
The difference now is that the Cambodian people are making a serious effort to improve themselves. The Indian people are not. And it’s really sad. I really like the Indian people, and I really want to see them improve themselves. And if that were happening, I’d congratulate them like I do with the Cambodians. But despite Hun Sen’s ridiculously corrupt regime, the Cambodians want to be better. Unfortunately for India, their government is almost as corrupt, but the people don’t realize that they’re on their own. The Cambodians know better. And they make about $3 per hour, more than twice what the Indians make. If the Cambodian people had to suffer like the Indians, there would be another revolution. Why the Indians put up with the suffering they endure is beyond me.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
And, yes, Hector, literacy is certainly much better in the South. But Chennai is still a nightmare compared to Phnom Penh. And phnom Penh ain’t to pretty. Yeah, Bangalore is okay, at least the cows aren’t in the streets in the high rent areas. And Delhi has a decent subway now (rode it), but not as nice as Bangkok’s. India should have a hell of a lot of potential, but they have to try.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
“$3 per hour”
Whoops. That should be $3 per day. But it’s still lot more than they make in India.
October 1st, 2008 at 12:36 am
McCain is talking out of both sides of his ass. It is, in fact, Musharraf’s eight year long illegitimate, incompetent and two-faced military rule that has made pakistan into a failed state. In 1999, Pakistan’s government (corrupt and not particularly good, but still a democratically elected and functional government) still controlled the tribal areas. Today, the Islamic Emirate is a separate nation that is fighting a shooting war with the Pakistani army. McCain is an ass.
October 1st, 2008 at 12:38 am
Ah yes, the frothing at the mouth Indian bemoaning the fact that all those animal Pakistanis will be able to understand is tough love, such as the bullet riddling of mosques and getting the crapped kicked out of them. Military rule is the only thing that can keep the country out of Islamist hands? I thank God/Jesus/Buddha/Allah that you will never attain any real power and are simply relegated to the realm of armchair speculation b/c that is a borderline racist statement.
October 1st, 2008 at 6:18 am
We can haggle over definitions all day long, but the central test determining if a state should be considered functional or failed is this:
Does the government maintain a monopoly on the legitimate use of force?
Since there are large areas in Western Pakistan where the government never had and doesn’t have no such control and since the military has been substantially undermining the government’s power for a long time, I think it’s ridiculous to simply dismiss “failed state” as a meaningful description for Pakistan. This doesn’t mean that McCain’s justification for the coup holds up, since these problems have persisted to this day.
October 1st, 2008 at 7:05 am
Sid,
Are you a moron? Pakistanis are the same ‘race’ as me (well in terms of skin color most of them are quite a bit lighter).
You can go ahead and imagine in your liberal fantasies that liberal democracy is the solution to everything, and that you can change Pakistanis into little cookie cutter American suburbanites. Some of us prefer acknowledging the facts.
Fostert,
Only 35% of Indians speak Hindi, and every Indian I have met spoke at least a couple of languages, although oftentimes English wasn’t among them. As far as I know, a bigger population of Pakistanis speaks Urdu as mother tongue. I repeat, where are you getting this from? You seem to have some funny ideas about India.
October 1st, 2008 at 7:51 am
Fostert, perhaps I didn’t express my point well about the Pakistani Taliban. They certainly do want to take over the country. My point was that they aren’t interested - or capable - of doing anything more than that. It’s not a US national security issue.
Even if the Pakistani Taliban completely ally themselves with Al Qaeda, and take over Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, there’s no way they’re going to give a nuke to Al Qaeda - not with India looking their way.
And if we had decent counterintelligence, we’d know about it - and that would be a justification for taking out their nuclear arsenal.
So we should wait for any of that to become a reality - because once the US is removed from the Pakistan equation, there is no great evidence that Al Qaeda or the Taliban can take over Pakistan absent its government being considered a tool of the US. It OUR INFLUENCE that is inflaming and radicalizing the Pakistani population to consider the Taliban an option at all.
Remove that, and the Taliban immediately become a more tractable problem for the Pakistani government.
We don’t need to worry about it until Al Qaeda is actually apparently coming close to taking over the government, the military and the nuclear arsenal - and that is a LONG way from happening or even being feasible at all.
As far the Afghan Taliban, they have repeatedly said they don’t give a damn about anything but getting rid of the US and NATO from Afghanistan. They don’t care about the West, they don’t care about establishing a bin Laden caliphate or any of that. They just want Afghanistan back. So give it to them - who gives a damn?
Again, Al Qaeda is an entirely SEPARATE ISSUE from either the Afghan Taliban or the Pakistani Taliban. Conflating the three factions and assuming a military option can deal with any of them does us no good at all.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:12 am
I think the McCain folks have clearly indicated that they are indifferent to issues of veracity, all that matters is a) claim Obama doesn’t understand and b) putative examples that seem hard edged (used to be a “failed state”) and truthy (Pakistan, everyone’s heard of that)
beyond that, it’s “facts? facts? we don’t need no stinkin’ facts”
October 1st, 2008 at 11:20 am
Thanks for the great work, once again. You’re featured on realitychex.com, a great site to find the latest & best political analysis.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:59 am
Re: As far the Afghan Taliban, they have repeatedly said they don’t give a damn about anything but getting rid of the US and NATO from Afghanistan. They don’t care about the West, they don’t care about establishing a bin Laden caliphate or any of that. They just want Afghanistan back. So give it to them - who gives a damn?
They’re lying, Hack. Does that come as a surprise to anyone?
October 1st, 2008 at 5:53 pm
But Obama didn’t have the knowledge to correct him.
October 23rd, 2008 at 9:52 pm
If you remove all the hypes, the entire Alqaida is just two men hiding in caves somewhere. Taliban is the name given to all those Pashtuns who oppose US occupation of Afghanistan. This may be millions of people. The purpose of conflating the two is to just keep the bugaboo called OBL alive, and feed the war machine called GWOT. Bring the troops back, the Talibans will leave Pakistan alone and OBL will probably continue to issue a tape every few months until he is betrayed by whoever is hiding him. To say that Taliban or the AlQaida can somehow takeover Pakistan is more ridiculous than saying that Cuba can invade and takeover USA.
November 21st, 2008 at 6:00 am
Penis Enlargement Pills, How to Suck Cock, Sex Secrets, Woman Masturbation, Penis Techniques, Sexual Performance, Sex Instructons & Positions. Visit: http://www.sinepenis.com
December 8th, 2008 at 7:32 am
HINGHAM, Mass. - (Business Wire) The Talbots, Inc. (NYSE: TLB) today announced it has retained Moelis
December 12th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Hi Bill, You were the Ambassador in Islamabad at that timeRichard Clarke had a business interest in not attacking the camp in which Bin Laden and few U.A.E. princes were staying for the hunting purpose in Afghanistan.Ceter for the counter terrorism had definate and specific information about the camp and its location.Can you pl. let the world know why Bin Laden was not killed or kidnaped at that time. To me the time was from 7th Fe. to 12 the feb 98
Arvind Goswami
January 6th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Natural Herbalz - We Care Your Health
An America’s Best Online Natural herbal health care products Review Store On Mens and Womens health, Skin Care, General Health, Sexual Health, Hair Care, Weight loss and More Health Care products, Treatments, Articles and Information. http://www.naturalherbalz.com
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:24 am
laptop battery
laptop batteries
January 22nd, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Hello, i am glad to read the whole content of this blog and am very excited and happy to say that the webmaster has done a very good job here to put all the information content and information at one place, i will must refer this information with reference on my website i.e http://www.gordoniihoodia.net
January 23rd, 2009 at 3:11 am
American largest online natural herbal health care products reviews and medicines for all kind of health care treatments and solutions for men’s and women’s health, skin care and hair care, general health and sexual health, weight loss and diet from http://www.naturalherbalproduct.com
February 10th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Hi there,
Nice blog, I just came across it and I’m already a fan
I hope it’s not impolite but I have just begun writing
my own weight loss(I went down 30 pounds in a month, so not bad
, and I was wondering if you could post
the weight loss system I used for your readers.
My most recent blog post is
safe weight loss
If you would be willing to do a link exchange
that would be excellent because I want to discuss my weight loss success
with your readers. If I can lose weight then
anyone else can too. Whatever you do, never give up and you WILL
meet all your weight loss goals!
Thanks for reading,
Joan
March 5th, 2009 at 7:34 am
There is obviously a lot to know about this. I think you made some good points in Features also.
March 10th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
As a Newbie, I am searching online for articles that can help me. I love this site
March 11th, 2009 at 4:27 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 12th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Keep working ,great job!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:04 am
Great site. Good info
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:06 am
Incredible site!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:35 am
Very nice site!
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:35 am
Very nice site! cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:35 am
Very nice site! cheap cialis http://ypxoiea.com/ovyrqqv/4.html
April 19th, 2009 at 8:44 am
fB8br8 iwjptwrlnpli, [url=http://alkbrhcwdrst.com/]alkbrhcwdrst[/url], [link=http://uytqvrdoivyq.com/]uytqvrdoivyq[/link], http://ctpwncnxirxq.com/