Instant Reaction to Libby Indictment
…coming later tonite! In the meantime, it seems Rove’s situation is the worst of possibilities for the White House. The continuing investigation into his role only indefinitely prolongs the crisis for the Bush administration.
Have a happy Friday.
October 28th, 2005 at 10:57 am
This makes it all the happier!
October 28th, 2005 at 11:30 am
Scooter scoots. Rove squirms.
Indictments or not, outlined facts clearly point to an orchestrated campaign by the the Vice Presidents office — with the VP not at some undisclosed location, but well within the loop — to mount a whispering campaign to discredit Wilson, using his CIA wife as fodder.
Libby has now indicted for his effort mislead prosecutors as part of a cover-up of all or part of that story.
Mmmmmmm, juicy. Fitzgerald still talking… maybe more to come.
October 28th, 2005 at 12:17 pm
I hate to break it to everyone here, but…
Libby was NOT indicted for leaking. Indeed, Fitzgerald explicitly stated “We’re not saying that Libby knowingly outted a covert agent,” so this is Martha Stewart time, indict somebody for criminally lying about non-criminal activities. In other words, FITZGERALD HAS NOW DECLARED THAT HE CANNOT PROVE A CRIMINAL LEAK OF PLAME’S NAME. That is the elephant in the room I expect everyone to ignore.
Now, Fitzgerald seems to still be putting the screws to Libby, so I suppose it could yet happen that Libby will crack and fess up to the worst you can imagine, but the longer it drags out the closer it gets to the day he gets pardoned, so it was in Fitzgerald’s interest to nail him now. And he hasn’t, and he said so.
What does that mean for Rove? That Fitzgerald, like Ken Starr or the guy going after Cisneros, will be there forever and ever. But he doesn’t have a charge, if he had one he’d have made it. So he’s just one more irritation on the radar for a busy staffer. My bet is, on the day Hillary’s sworn in, Rove will still have a job and will not be under indictment. (Can Bush pardon him in advance of charges? I think so, Ford did for Nixon, no?)
Sorry, guys, like Miers it’s over. And though I don’t much like this administration, I like the way we now use the courts to harass our opponents even less. It was ugly, dirty politics when it was done to Clinton and it’s just as ugly and dirty now. You want Karl Rove out of there? Then let’s win the next f’ing election.
October 28th, 2005 at 12:36 pm
Freddy, you’re clueless as usual. If it’s over for anybody, it’s because the lies and disinformation of this administration are increasingly on the record for everyone to see. What this case is about is exposing a pattern by which the Scooter Libby’s, Doug Feiths and other members of the Cheney-Rumsfeld Cabal didn’t want us – most notably including the parents, wives or children of the 2000-plus Americans who would die in Iraq during this war – to know just how cooked the rationale for speculative pre-emption actually was. Nothing more and nothing less…because despite the justifiable protestations of the prosecutor, that door is getting pried open by the press and disgruntled veterans of this administration. And it’s one of the reasons we’ve got an excellent shot at winning the coming elections (plural), with an emphasis on getting better representation in Congress and some of the currently “red” statehouses.
These indictments and the ongoing investigation of Rove isn’t even close to offering any solace for either BushCo or their minions. The goose is cooked…
October 28th, 2005 at 12:38 pm
“it was in Fitzgerald’s interest to nail him now. And he hasn’t, and he said so”
Did you listen to Fitz’ press conference ? Because he said precisely the opposite, loudly and clearly.
October 28th, 2005 at 12:52 pm
Freddy, as Fitzgerald said “truth is the engine that drives justice”. He does not regard obstruction and perjury any less of a crime than the leaking, nor should we. He’s nailed Libby and there’s no consolation for his side. He pretty much eviscerated the GOP talking points of late (which seem to be yours), especially as relayed by Kay Bailey Hutchison.
October 28th, 2005 at 1:23 pm
Freddy, you are wrong. Libby was indicted for disclosing the Plame Name, which is explicitly identified in the indictment as “classified information.” I’m not sure if the allegations are broad enough, yet, to justify a full-blown trial about the administration’s selling of the war. That probably won’t happen unless and until the motivation of the defendant or his co-conspirators is an issue (what is known in law as an “element” of the crime that must be proven by the prosecutor), or at least would tend to show that a disputed material fact occurred or did not occur. I don’t see that in this indictment.
But the administration’s relief at Rove’s status will probably last until about Sunday night, when they allow thoughts to penetrate concerning the future. More anxiety…continued scrutiny….Probably pressure to resign/terminate or grant leave to Rove….No pleasant prospects.
From a political point of view, the question may be what the continuing investigation means about the timing of the trial(s?).
October 28th, 2005 at 1:42 pm
When Libby went before the grand jury he had three options: tell the truth, tell a lie or assert his rights under the fifth amendment (which could not be used as inference of guilt). It appears that he deliberately chose to lie. By so doing, he has interfered with and damaged the investigation into who leaked Ms. Plame’s name.
Accordingly it may be impossible now to determine what has happened. That’s why they call it obstruction of justice.
October 28th, 2005 at 1:57 pm
What reg and Marc D. said to Freddy-the-Pig, who does not appear to be a listener.
But about Libby, while it would appear that he’s thus far fallen on his sword for his boss (Notes of a conversation with Cheney about Wilson’s wife? What notes?)…now that he’s been indicted and has got five counts arrayed against him, several of them significant enough to merit serious prison time, is he going to make THAT big a sacrifice for those above him, or will he plead to something in return for being…uh…..a tad more forthcoming regarding Cheney’s role in all this?
Also we hear that Wurmser and David Hadley cooperated with Fitzgerald, which suggests they cut deals. Well, DID they cut deals? And if so, what did they have to plead to?
Still many more questions to be answered—and that’s before we even get to Rove.
October 28th, 2005 at 2:12 pm
Ditto what everyone said to Fred…….
I honestly predicated last night on another spot,….yes I spoke elsewhere…smiling the exact happenings of today.
I am quite impressed with Fitz – this man gave a history lesson in law to even the most handicapped listener during his long conference.
Me? – I am happy even Libby was indicted, there is always a pawn — aka Ollie North et al, take any moment in history, there is always one poor slob who gets suckered…while the big boys go on…..
On a political note — as Alfred E. Neuman would say….”What me worry?”…….nope…the thread is pulled, the unravel has begun and the next three years will be a joy to watch and am ever so happy that Bush was elected for a 2nd term to drown in his own puddle.
For just the “moment” I suppose I truly enjoyed the most, out of all the rhetoric and conferences today jerk off Bush — in his VERY best Texas Twang, dropping more than his usual g’s talking for 6 nanoseconds about the event before escaping and I mean ESCAPING to Camp David — along side, if anyone saw it with….yes my favorite laugh of the day…Meir also entering the helicopter! Priceless I tell you…I am giddy from the insanity!
October 28th, 2005 at 2:24 pm
You all can believe what you want to believe. You can keep on believing it to the bitter end.
But it’s pretty funny that I’m accused of not being a listener when you all go off on your own fantasies about this and ignore the very words of Patrick Fitzgerald.
Rosedog hopes Libby will turn on Cheney. And accuse him of what: discussing a covert CIA employee with a top staffer? Here’s Fitzgerald: “The indictment alleges that Mr. Libby learned the information about Valerie Wilson at least three times in June of 2003 from government officials. Let me make clear there was nothing wrong with government officials discussing Valerie Wilson or Mr. Wilson or his wife and imparting the information to Mr. Libby.” So what’s Cheney’s crime, precisely?
Michael Crosby says “Freddy, you are wrong. Libby was indicted for disclosing the Plame Name, which is explicitly identified in the indictment as “classified information.” Well, here’s Fitzgerald, please identify the charge in which he is indicted for disclosing Ms. Plame’s name: “The grand jury’s indictment charges that Mr. Libby committed five crimes. The indictment charges one count of obstruction of justice of the federal grand jury, two counts of perjury and two counts of false statements.”
Marc Davidson, as par for the course excommunicating me from the liberal side for failing to celebrate Fitzmas, says “Freddy, as Fitzgerald said “truth is the engine that drives justiceâ€. He does not regard obstruction and perjury any less of a crime than the leaking, nor should we.” So how’d you feel about Paula Jones’ case, Marc? How’d you feel about Ken Starr’s relentless engine investigating a president up down and sideways until finally it found something, anything to base a case on?
And Reg… well, there are hardly any facts there to wrestle with, so we’ll just let it go. For starters it’s rooted in the idea that the only justification the administration made for the war was WMD and the only justification for WMD was the yellowcake report, which simply aren’t true (as any review of Bush’s speeches will quickly show).
I’d love to see the Dems win back the House. But I also remember what happened in the last midterm election that was run on the basis of the other party’s scandals, in 1998. Do you?
Incidentally, I’ve now heard two talking heads (Jeffrey Toobin and some legal analyst on NPR) say that today was a very good day for Karl Rove. Sorry….
October 28th, 2005 at 2:46 pm
Ah folks, did you actually READ the indictment?
It’s here: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf
Libby is charged ONLY with perjury and obstruction of justice.
The indictment rests on the assertions that Libby was told of Plame’s status (marriage to Wilson, CIA employment, and sending Wilson to Niger) by government officials including the Vice President BEFORE he spoke to reporters and passed that information along; and repeatedly lied about passing of information to Tim Russert, Matt Cooper, and Judy Miller.
Fitzgerald’s case rests on Libby ONLY learning from government sources not reporters; and NOT being told by reporters about Plame’s general status. To gain acquittal the Defense need only show or suggest that a reporter told him BEFORE the Vice President and other government officials did.
As such testimony by Cooper, Miller, and Russert will key to obtaining a conviction in court. Good luck with that one. Cooper in particular has problems for any jury with a semi-competent Defense Attorney, given that Cooper’s wife is Mandy Grunewald, Hillary’s top staffer and he benefits directly from any political harm done to President Bush. Cooper has a reason to lie, and even if he is telling the truth can be shown to be less than credible to a jury based on a massive conflict of interest. Miller if Maureen Dowd and Bill Keller’s odd word choices (“entanglement”) has another problem with credibility, and so does Russert frankly. Novak, Kristof, Wilson, Plame, and a host of others will be brought in to testify in a trial. Recall the Michael Jackson jury focused on the obvious lies of the alleged abuse victim’s mother and disregarded frankly credible testimony from other witnesses.
If a good defense attorney like say Tom Mesereau can plant a seed of doubt that Cooper for example is lying with the jury, and DID tell Libby of Plame’s general status then the case falls apart. Wilson is also a risk (he lied or mislead in interviews), and so is Plame (she said in her Vanity Fair interview she told Joe Wilson she worked for the CIA on the third date to impress him). The Press release by Fitz’s office notes that Plame’s identity and role in sending Wilson on the trip was faxed to the White House by the CIA, suggesting not much effort by the CIA to keep her covert.
Martha Stewart got convicted because: a. the Jury didn’t like her; b. her assistant and broker had corroborating physical evidence to their testimony, physically altered diaries and a phone log plus transactions of Tenet stock. Unless Cooper, Russert, and Miller tape recorded the conversations (a crime itself if not disclosed) it’s merely their word against Libby’s, and as noted they have problems at trial at being credible. Andrea Mitchell’s statement on MTP that “everyone” knew about Plame’s status is going to be entered into evidence, and that line pursued as well.
The investigation was all about blame-laying for WMD intelligence failure (Tenet said it was a slam dunk) between the CIA and WH; and Fitzgerald putting Miller in jail for payback on Islamic Charities. I seriously doubt any conviction on this; and the trial is a guaranteed circus making everyone including Wilson, Plame and many members of the Press look bad. Fallout of course is no source in the government will talk to the press after this. Welcome to the Official Secrets Act.
Looking forward to the trial; be fun to see Russert being cross examined; same for Novak, Cooper, Kristof, and a host of others. I guarantee the Defense Attorneys will put the Press on trial.
October 28th, 2005 at 3:04 pm
I’ll add one more tidbit. In the Press Conference Fitzgerald admitted to knowing who leaked Plame to the Press first (Novak) but would not reveal the identity.
WHAT if it was Wilson (or Tenet?). What then? The whole case could fall apart if Plame was leaked by her husband (shopping his op-ed around) or Tenet to Novak.
That Fitzgerald would not reveal who the leaker is, seems to me to be quite significant, and probably hurtful to his case (hence concealing it from a potential jury pool). Gee trial will be fun.
October 28th, 2005 at 3:13 pm
“Libby is charged ONLY with perjury and obstruction of justice….” Uh, “onlyâ€???
(Plus two counts of making false statements to FBI agents, while we’re at it.)
. And although Libby’s innocent until proven guilty, do you genuinely think, based on your observation of Fitzgerald, that he’s going to bring any indictments he isn’t fairly certain he can make stick?
October 28th, 2005 at 3:16 pm
Comparing Clinton’s transgressions to Libby’s is like comparing shoplifting a pack of gum to lifting a $100K diamond ring. Technically, the same crime, but one causes a lot more damage than the other. If Clinton had been honest about Lewinsky, would that have been the silver bullet Jones needed to prove her case? Did his obfuscation deny Jones justice? And, by the way, if any former Texas State employee had launched a lawsuit against former boss GWB, is there anyone who believes SCOTUS would have allowed it to proceed during his presidential term?
And as long as we are comparing apples and oranges, putting Fitzgerald into the same category as Ken Starr is practically a smear.
October 28th, 2005 at 3:55 pm
Libby was not indicted for disclosing classified information. However, he was charged with that by releasing VPW’s name, which he defines as “classified information”, to Judy Miller, Russert et al. because the prosecutor has found that his explanation of the discussions with those reporters was false and perjurious.
Whether Rove’s current status as unindicted citizen is a good thing or not for Bush and Cheney remains to be seen. I think not, but the key fact will be what effect the extension has on the trial date. If the trial is going on Sept – Nov of 2006, the Texans have a problem.
October 28th, 2005 at 3:56 pm
Jim – your characterization of my response and the bizarre allegations about the “ideas they are rooted in” are complete and total bullshit…but what else is new . You started out by claiming that Fitzgerald said he hadn’t nailed Libby – when he made an explicit and strong statement that the he’d nailed Libby on very substantive charges that dealt with fundamental and serial malfeasance. Also anybody with half a brain can see that Libby’s felonious actions were a deliberate extension of the path he’d laid out as one of the prime WMD point men for the cabal. So don’t lecture anyone else as though they were obtuse. Frankly, the more I learn about this, the more I find that the Libby indictment gets to the heart of where these guys went off the deep end – more so than if it had been directed against Rove. Libby’s indictment shines a light on deeper issues than the continuing saga of Roves political pathologies. Of course, I could write a detailed response as long as your posts put together with the crazy shit from Rockford (“Libby was screwing Miller, so it’ll go up in smoke ?!?!?!?!?!?” A free sub to the National Enquirer if that bizarre charge pans out !) but an extensive counter screed to such thin pablum would be a waste of time.
I’m going to rip off an absolutely wicked – and wildly unfair – ad hominem that was directed to Marc on an earlier thread and put it to better use. It appears that you’ve found your niche as Jim Rockford’s underpants.
October 28th, 2005 at 4:08 pm
“Andrea Mitchell’s statement on MTP that ‘everyone’ knew about Plame’s status is going to be entered into evidence”
Now there’s a credible witness…
October 28th, 2005 at 4:09 pm
One more Q to JR and http://FtP...
Why the desperation ????
October 28th, 2005 at 4:27 pm
“To gain acquittal the Defense need only show or suggest that a reporter told him BEFORE the Vice President and other government officials did.”
This has already been proven false.
October 28th, 2005 at 5:48 pm
Raw Story had this a while ago, but now it’s turned up on AP. Here’s a snipped version:
***************
‘Official A’ Stands Out in Indictment
- – - – - – - – - – - -
By PETE YOST Associated Press Writer
October 28,2005 | WASHINGTON — In a sign of the trouble lingering for the Bush administration, the indictment handed up Friday in the CIA leak probe refers to someone at the White House known as “Official A.”……
Although other officials are mentioned but not named in the indictment, all were identified Friday afternoon during briefings at the Justice Department.
Except for “Official A.”
….The mysterious official is identified in the indictment only as “a senior official in the White House.”
Friday’s indictment says “Official A” is a “senior official in the White House who advised Libby on July 10 or 11 of 2003″ about a chat with Novak about his upcoming column in which Plame would be identified as a CIA employee.
Late Friday, three people close to the investigation, each asking to remain unidentified because of grand jury secrecy, identified Rove as Official A.
October 28th, 2005 at 5:59 pm
John Conyers asks some rather simple and succinct questions over at Huff Po.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-conyers/what-did-the-president-an_b_9692.html
Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake is also worth reading (as is often the case)—particularly the last half of her post:
http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/
October 28th, 2005 at 6:14 pm
Three points stand out today:
1) The GOP Talking points will go along the lines Freddy and Rockford are using. I don’t think they will try to trash Fitzgerald.
2) Fitzgerald is one impressive and scary prosecutor. I’d hate to have him after my ass.
3) It will be interesting to see how long Libby will take the fall. By all accounts his lies were transparent and easily shown. Yet Libby is supposed to be smart and a Ivy League Lawyer whose clients included Marc Rich. So why so stupid. Is he expecting a pardon? Or will he cop a plea and turn on others. As Dighby says they better be real, REAL, nice to him! After all the witness list will include the VP, Karl Rove, and maybe Shrub himself. Oh will that be a great trial to cover! Where is Nancy Grace when you need her!
I just heard on MSNBC that the WaPo is reporting that Rove was all set to be indicted when his lawyer provided last minute information that gave Fitzgerald pause. Which is why Rove is still in jeapardy. Did “Bush’s Brain” turn ub scooter? Or is he trying to extirpate himself? And is he “Official A”? And who leaked to Novak? Fitz must know since its obvious that the Prince of Darkness sang like Sinatra.
October 28th, 2005 at 7:07 pm
Why was Scooter so desperate to lie ? Cogent commentary…
http://theunitedamerican.blogs.com/Movies/2000A/2000.html
October 28th, 2005 at 7:12 pm
I should have directed that earlier response (3:56) to “Freddy”, not “Jim” ….sorry about the confusion. It’s getting hard to tell certain people apart.
October 28th, 2005 at 7:40 pm
Jesus…I just read in the NYT’s obit that Penn Kemble died nearly two weeks ago. Few here will know who this guy is, but Abbas referenced him -about two weeks ago – and I made a nasty comment about him being a neocon lackey. He was an ally of the neocons, but I was unfair in implying he was a lackey. He was a hardcore Shactmanite – again, a totally obscure reference – but I’ll never forget him and I harbor some nostalgic affection for this character. He once took me to hear Irving Howe deliver a memorable diatribe against the New Left – “New Styles In Leftism” – which made me recoil almost as much as Irving Howe recoiled when Penn introduced me to him. I was a scruffy, long-haired SDS kid in boots and a fatique jacket (cue guffaws) and Howe gave me a stare that was indicative of everything he loathed in our crowd. Truth is he was mostly right, as a matter of intellectual argument. I read that speech again in a “Dissent” anthology a dozen or so years ago, and I agreed with damn near every word. What can I say? Anyway, it kind of freaked me out that I was dissing Kemble when he was near death. I guess that makes me a hypocrite. But the guy was a CORE activist when it actually meant something. He mustn’t have thought I was a complete idiot as an 18-year old refugee from the Midwest come to NYC to discover what the world was about. His friend Tom Kahn’s pamphlet, “The Economic’s of Racism” – published by CORE – had turned me into a socialist/social democrat at the age of 17. That Penn and Kahn veered into some very shady corners of the political world thirty-five years ago doesn’t diminish their passion for what they believed was right. I wish my corner of this fight had more advocates who were as tireless and talented.
October 28th, 2005 at 9:23 pm
Well I’ll be damned.
http://www.socialdemocrats.org/tribute.html
So that’s why there hadn’t been a new issue of Notesonline since March, and SDUSA has been non-existent for much of this year.
October 28th, 2005 at 9:38 pm
Interesting.
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Fitzgerald_expands_probe_believes_he_can_1028.html
Leak investigation not seen over
Jason Leopold
In one of the boldest moves yet in the 22-month investigation into the outing of a covert CIA agent to a handful of top reporters covering the White House, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is extending his probe and pursuing much more serious charges against senior White House officials, lawyers directly involved in the case told RAW STORY Friday.
While many people were left confused by news reports that said Rove wouldn’t be indicted Friday, the lawyers said that Rove remains under intense scrutiny and added that Fitzgerald is betting on the fact that he can secure an indictments against him or other officials on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, the misuse of classified information, and possibly other charges, as early as next week.
“This investigation is not yet over,†one of the lawyers in the case said. “You must keep in mind that people like Mr. Rove are still under investigation. Rather than securing an indictment on perjury charges against Mr. Rove Mr. Fitzgerald strongly believes he can convince the grand jury that he broke other laws.â€
The lawyers said that in the past month Fitzgerald has obtained explosive information in the case that has enabled him to pursue broader charges such as conspiracy, and civil rights violations against targets like Rove. Rove could also provide information that would allow Fitzgerald to target additional officials.
Specifically, the lawyers said Fitzgerald is focusing on phony intelligence documents that led to the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity: the documents that claimed Iraq was attempting to purchase yellow-cake uranium from Niger.
A court filing posted on Fitzgerald’s website last week was the first such confirmation that the prosecutor has in fact decided to pursue the broader claims that intelligence the Bush administration used to build support for the Iraq war was flawed and, as a result, the reason many officials inside and outside of the White House went out of their way to out Plame, whose husband was a vocal critic of the Iraq war who was sent on a mission to Niger to investigate allegations that Iraq had attempted to buy Niger from the African country.
“On August 12 and August 20, 2004, grand jury subpoenas were issued to reporter Judith Miller and her employer, the New York Times, seeking documents and testimony related to “conversations between Miller and a specified government official occurring between on or about July 6, 2003 and on or about July 13, 2003, concerning Valerie Plame Wilson (whether referred to by name or by description) or concerning Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium.†the filing made by Fitzgerald last year states.
NATO sources told United Press International Monday that Fitzgerald’s team of investigators has sought and obtained documentation on the forgeries from the Italian government.
This claim, which made its way into President Bush’s State of the Union address in January, 2003, was based on falsified documents from Niger and was later withdrawn by the White House.”
Fitzgerald will draw on another grand jury that is already empaneled. Federal law says that a grand jury’s term cannot be extended more than once, which is the case with the grand jury that has been hearing testimony in the case.
October 28th, 2005 at 11:41 pm
“It was ugly, dirty politics when it was done to Clinton and it’s just as ugly and dirty now.”
Boy, do I disagree with that. I wanted Clinton nailed to the wall and I want Libby, and anyone else they can catch, to burn. I see nothing ugly or dirty about this at all– as far as I’m concerned, every time a member of the political class is imprisoned, an angel gets his wings…
October 28th, 2005 at 11:46 pm
Howe always had a grandfatherly way of looking at Leftists…that…you-were-brought-up-to-know-better-young-leftist kinda look.
October 29th, 2005 at 11:43 am
WHAT if it was Wilson (or Tenet?). What then?
Or Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny?
October 30th, 2005 at 9:29 am
“Howe gave me a stare that was indicative of everything he loathed in our crowd. Truth is he was mostly right, as a matter of intellectual argument.”
Actually , as Peter Levy pointed out, there was far more support for new left activism among labor than the likes of Dissent editors could acknowledge without underming their silly stereotypes of new left activism:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0252063678/qid=1130689690/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/002-6414410-3943253?v=glance&s=books
Read and relearn the history you apparently missed while ‘living it’…
October 30th, 2005 at 4:54 pm
The UAW was one of the primary funding agents of early SDS…but the history hardly ends there.
Unless you’ve read that particular speech of Howe’s you’d best not make more foolish comments about how uninformed I am about events and personalities I witnessed.
October 31st, 2005 at 5:18 am
Right on DC Viper – corruption costs
June 8th, 2006 at 12:09 am
Right on DC Viper – corruption costs only for 5$
July 12th, 2006 at 10:42 pm
Stay With me Ringtone…
Download the ringtone of the popular song: Stay With me …
June 29th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
character cake pans…
Hi. Very nice blog. I\’ve been reading your other entries all day long..lol….
August 4th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
great post!
August 4th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
thanks for that info…
November 29th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Its really nice, this article is just great, especially for beginners. happens all the time
January 4th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
Hello Guru, what enticed you to post this article. This article was extremely interesting, especially since I was searching for thoughts on this subject since last weekend.