Thursday, June 30, 2005

Major Disappointment

From the NY Times website today:

Time magazine said today that it would provide documents concerning the confidential sources of one of its reporters to a grand jury investigating the disclosure of the identity of a covert C.I.A. agent, Valerie Plame.

Text: Time Inc. Statement on Handing Over Documents (June 30, 2005)

In a statement, Norman Pearlstine, Time Inc.'s editor in chief, said: "The same Constitution that protects the freedom of the press requires obedience to final decisions of the courts and respect for their rulings and judgments. That Time Inc. strongly disagrees with the courts provides no immunity. The innumerable Supreme Court decisions in which even presidents have followed orders with which they strongly disagreed evidences that our nation lives by the rule of law and that none of us is above it."
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court turned down appeals from the magazine, one of its reporters, Matthew Cooper, and a reporter for The New York Times, Judith Miller.


Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher of The New York Times, said in a statement: "We are deeply disappointed by Time Inc.'s decision to deliver the subpoenaed records. We faced similar pressures in 1978 when both our reporter Myron Farber and The Times Company were held in contempt of court for refusing to provide the names of confidential sources. Mr. Farber served 40 days in jail and we were forced to pay significant fines.
"Our focus is now on our own reporter, Judith Miller, and in supporting her during this difficult time."


I don't like the implication of this.

42 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Er...I don't get it.

The "source" in this BROKE A FEDERAL LAW in outing a covert operative, and for the puniest of political motives.

Why do you support covering up the identity of a source in the White House who intentionally outed a covert operative in an effort to discredit her husband?

Thursday, June 30, 2005 11:07:00 AM  
Blogger PDXMediaWatcher said...

I don't like the idea that they have to force a reporter to give up a source to whom he promised anonymity. This will have a chilling effect on whistleblowing and other efforts to write and report on things that could do harm to others.
In the end, no one wins here.

Thursday, June 30, 2005 11:56:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This will have a chilling effect on whistleblowing and other efforts to write and report on things that could do harm to others.

I think the federal appeals court decision (which the SCOTUS deferred to upon deciding to not hear an appeal) explicitly said that this applies to grand juries acting in good faith, as in this case. And what the person who outed Plame did is not whistleblowing! Whistleblowing is someone in an organization leaking information that shows a crime is being committed--in this case, the person was himself committing a crime by trying to discredit Wilson.

Thursday, June 30, 2005 12:11:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Any reason why the guy who actually outed Plame, robert Novak, is not being punished? Only way he would get off the hook would have been to spill the beans. If he did then why are they going after these to smucks? Seems the feds are going to use this case to try and silence the media. So if no one in the Bush Ad ends up in prison and the media gets smacked down, who wins?

Thursday, June 30, 2005 12:39:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The chilling effect is that this introduces a back door version of prior restraint. Even if a source is willing to come forward, newspapers and other print media may not print their findings because reporters would have to reveal their sources in the end. That's killed more than a story or two in my days in print at small newspapers.

Also, one TV commentator and print columnist, Robert Novak, already spilled the beans to the feds. If they can't build a case upon that, they have no case.

Thankfully, the NY Times stuck to its guns. Figures that Time, never a bastion of journalistic integrity, would fold.

Thursday, June 30, 2005 12:42:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This makes me sick. I got a subpoena a few years back essentially because the local DA's office couldn't do their job -- or thought it would be easier to have us to it for them. I think this case is part of strong-arming and bullying the press because the government would rather make it go away than make the Bushies look bad. And yeah, why the hell haven't they gone after Novak?

Thursday, June 30, 2005 12:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know there are a lot of folks who come to this site who thinks this decision will do damage to the Bush folks - but the long term damage will be much deeper.

Thursday, June 30, 2005 12:51:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ok, so let's suppose that we take our host's standpoint, and say that this information should be protected. What kind of activity are we protecting through this withholding? We're not protecting some heroic member of the White House who is releasing information that he thinks is in the nation's best interest, even though it could spill the end of his career. We're talking about someone who outed a CIA operative, ruined her cover and the company that was her cover, and possibly outed a number of her contacts overseas and/or in this country (something that could very well mean death for US intelligence assets).

I'd like to hear a defense that addresses this specific incident rather than the general "this will have a chilling effect" approach.

Thursday, June 30, 2005 1:04:00 PM  
Anonymous no one in particular said...

There's nothing about this specific incident that deserves protection, IMO. But this kind of stuff is all about setting precedent, and this is a creepy precedent. Anonymous sources break the law all the time... like the person who leaked the PGE/Texas Pacific documents to WWeek. Totally illegal, but definitely in the public interest.

While it's true that a lot of times people make weird arguments on principle rather than focus on specifics, when it comes to court cases, I don't think you can complain about that so easily. Because rulings about specific cases DO end up affecting other situations that are superficially similar.

Thursday, June 30, 2005 1:57:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Constitution is not a warm, cuddly blanket to protect someone from BETRAYING the same document by outting a covert CI gent.

Grow up, little media lapdogs... grow up, little doggies.

Someone should go to jail for this... and my bet is their first name is Andrew or Karl and they work at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue... where I once worked...covering 41.

Thursday, June 30, 2005 1:59:00 PM  
Anonymous Simp said...

reiterating above:

Whistleblowers disclose evidence of a crime and do so anonymously for fear of reprisals. This is a case that the act of disclosing Plame's name to the reporter was itself a crime. Privilege does not apply when the reporter is witness to a crime.

Now, they have exhausted their appeals through the judicial system. Also, if the grand jury finds no evidence that a crime has been committed then there shouldn't be any information released.

The specualtion is that Miller and Cooper are coorborating evidence. Fitzgerald already has the name of the leaker and is most likely looking at the others in the administration who may be involved.

Cooper intention was to publish artlicle to bring attention to the fact that a crime may have been committed. Though, even if he had good intentions he is still witness to a possible crime.

Novak's role in the investigation is not clear as of yet, but the speculation is that either spilled the beans or made a deal in exchange for immunity from indictment. If he didn't he could be named in an indictment.

MediaWatcher thinks this will have a "chillling" effect, which is overreaching quite a bit. This does not, in any way, threaten legitimate whistleblowers.

I'm finding this case more fascinating and compelling than any current news story.

Thursday, June 30, 2005 3:04:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you kidding? Of course this affects whisle blowers. It sets a legal precedent that the government can bully any reporter into disclosing their source with the threat of jail. And having faced that, I can tell you it's no fun.

Thursday, June 30, 2005 3:51:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Revealing any classified information is a crime. Good intentions have nothing to do with it. Would the pentagon papers have come out if the source didn't have a good guarantee of anonymity? Deep throat?

Besides, anything can be made a crime by the legislature. Here's a gem from indymedia: did you know it's a Class A Misdemeanor to take a video recording of police making an arrest if it also includes an audio recording? Check out this story and ORS 165.540. Note that there's no press exemption; your camera crew filming the next Rodney King Incident could get clapped in irons just like this citizen allegedly was.

The legislative session ain't over yet, boys and girls. If you want to get this story on the air and get this law changed, now's the time.

Thursday, June 30, 2005 4:18:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whoops, they got rid of a duplicate story. (Imagine that, editors on indymedia!) Try here: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/320582.shtml

Thursday, June 30, 2005 7:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So....Judith Miller has gotten EVERYTHING wrong. Maybe The Mercury, where it doesn't count, could use a reporter like her.
Novak the toad makes me regret ever having become a journalist, something he is not.

Thursday, June 30, 2005 8:58:00 PM  
Anonymous Simp said...

First of all let me clarify: I'm all for whistle-blower protection. It is absolutely important to protect sources. However, that protection cannot be absolute. Doctor's, lawyer's, priests can all be compelled to testify under certain circumstances. So if not absolute, where do you draw the line? To what extent are you willing to cover criminal activity in order to preserve privilege?

There are reasonable reasons to shield journalists and the only possible reason to shield them in this case is that it sets a bad precedent? Criminal law expects everyone to testify. Privilege is used as an exception. I agree with the federal judge that there is not compelling reason to invoke privilege in this case.

But again, this is clearly not a case of whistle-blowing, this is a special case (yes, I know your arguments about sources not caring about exceptions to the rule). I believe that the greater good of the public is served by revealing this source. I'm more concerned about the precedent that is set allowing a governmental official to hide behind the 1st amendment to protect an abuse of power.

Revealing the name of a CIA operative is a felony and Novak was complicit to this felony by then publishing the information. Additionally, Miller and Cooper were not acting in the capacity of an investigative journalist. They received, unsolicited, classified information for the express purpose political retribution.

Judith Miller has gotten EVERYTHING wrong

That may be true, but at least Chalabi still thinks she's a good lay :P

Thursday, June 30, 2005 9:57:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Earlier, someone speculated that the only reason Novak isn't sitting in the same boat as Miller and Cooper would have to be that Novak talked, but then wondered why, then, prosecutors would need Miller and Cooper's testimony. One question: Would you trust Novak?

Friday, July 01, 2005 12:47:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Novak did talk. That's why he's not in the same seat.

As reporters, if you can't see the problem here, you're in the wrong business. Your word on anonymity is a bond between you and a source. It's not up to you to make a distinction between what's a good law to break and what's a bad law to break. Your word is all you have.

Once you start down the path of case-by-case basis, you are now in the position of making judgment calls on which sources to protect and which to snitch on. In the time-honored world of reporting, if finding the source of the leak is so important, then get another reporter to dig up the dirt on the grand jury testimony. The federal prosecutor has a name or two; an inside reporter with good sources should be able to find that out.

Of course, revealing a grand jury process is a federal crime. So then is it OK to rat out your sources if law enforcement comes calling, as it surely will?

Under this court ruling, you'd be compelled to do so.

So now it's back in your lap to decide: Was this a good reason to reveal a source or a bad reason? You think an anonymous source wants to put his or her fate in your judgment?

Friday, July 01, 2005 8:37:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wait, let's review.

The press screams about the Bush Administration violating a federal law by "outing" an undercover agent, and calls for an independent investigator. The administration does so.

The independent counsel seeks reporters' notes in order to determine the source of the leak. The reporters refuse, citing their promise of confidentiality.

It's revealed that the leak of Ms. Plame's name probably wasn't even a crime at all. The relevant law was intended to protect secret agents in the field; Ms. Plame was at the CIA, not in the field, and her husband created his own celebrity to criticize the war and the president. (And who, by the way, was shown by a Senate Intelligence Committee investigation to be lying through his teeth, even though the press was much more reluctant to cover that follow-up angle.)

These same media outlets that screamed for an independent counsel suddenly admit that maybe there was no law broken, and -- faced with a colleague's potential jail term -- revert to protecting their own by calling for the prosecutor to back off his quest for confidential press information.

If it's against the law to reveal the name, why is it appropriate to print it? Spare me the First Amendment arguments that give you the latititude -- instead, tell me why it's APPROPRIATE. If something is illegal, why should a private citizen be subject to the law, but you -- by the simple fact that your business card says "reporter" -- be exempt?

Yes, a reporter made a promise of confidentiality. (What about the promises made in the law to keep a grand jury secret?) To justify this promise, there has to be a greater public benefit. What's the greater good in this case? The only one I see is embarrassing an administration that most journalists dislike.

A government free of the accountability provided by journalists could be a scary government, indeed. But that concept of accountability goes both ways. What's keeping journalists accountable? It's not any supposed list of ethics generated by a media organization; it's great when a journalist show restraint based on accepted norms of right and wrong, but those are not binding on the industry as a whole.

So what provides accountability for media? The law. We don't need a new and/or expanded shield law that reinforces the journalism community's unreasonably high opinion of itself by giving it the ability to thumb its collective nose at laws that the rest of us have to follow.

Friday, July 01, 2005 10:21:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It's revealed that the leak of Ms. Plame's name probably wasn't even a crime at all."

Then why are the reporters being compelled to reveal sources? Improbable Cause?

Friday, July 01, 2005 10:46:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Reporters, such as in the local news media, ARE NOT reporters if they 'report' less information than the public already understands. Thess are not real news reporters, they are only playing them on TV.

First of all, whistle blowing means (maybe anonymously) telling a reporter about a hidden crime, injustice or wrongdoing. Telling a reporter a secret agent's name is committing a crime, explicitly committing a treasonous felony crime. So start by getting your words straight, your definitions true.

A related sample of language distortion is in The Oregonian's editorial today, in its very departure-point premise; "Secrets are essential to a free press." Obviously, secret and (in) press are contradicting, mutually exclusive terms. Truth is: 'integrity is essential to a free press,' but that's not too profound since 'integrity is essence' is nearly a tautology. However, the tautology's special application in this subject is that sometimes the (free) press's integrity is based in secret keeping, and that is paradoxical, at least counterintuitive. So our leading The Oregonian misleads any student (pretender) news reporter who, like Will Rogers, (but in a reverse sense from his meaning), 'only knows what s/he reads in the paper.'

Integrity expresses freedom, secrets don't; yet, oddly, in the institution of the press sometimes its integrity is determined in its secrets.

A personal aside, very briefly, (and maybe a demonstration test of whether you can believe my integrity where I keep parts secret): Twice in the last decade I broke laws with words I had published, once in The Oregonian and once in Willamette Week. The latter stood between me and prosecutors and free-press protected me as their anonymous source; the former gave me up the same day they were asked to.

But I don't claim to be any model either, for would-be news reporters studying how to analyze and investigate secret dealings of public officials. There is someone who does stand as a model, though, and from the following link and the links it contains -- reading through, perhaps adding some email contact Q.&A., and comprehending human nature in the gaps and doubletalk -- an eager beaver story weaver still could do breakout reporting in this town before evening news airtime, today.

(The excerpt below has been shortened in many passages by my fingers on the 'Delete' key and I have not marked where. Caveat cogitor.)
-------------------
A New Chapter In The Valerie Plame Case:
Insights Gained From The New Edition of The Book by Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson
By JOHN W. DEAN

Friday, May. 20, 2005

The grand jury investigation into the illegal leak of Valerie Plame's covert CIA identity still has not led to the public revelation of any suspect who might be responsible for the leak. Yet according to columnist Robert Novak, who published the leaked information, the suspects are two "senior" Bush Administration sources - who may be high-profile.

A number of reporters have already voluntarily testified before the grand jury. But New York Times reporter Judith Miller and Time magazine reporter Mathew Cooper are not among them. In a recent column, I explained why the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia did not protect Miller and Cooper's ability to hide their sources - and why I believe the U.S. Supreme Court is very unlikely to step in.

But beneath these legal issues, lies a mystery: Why has the investigation's focus fallen on them, in particular? Miller never wrote about the leak of Plame's identity; Cooper wrote about it well after Novak had included the leaked information in his column.

So these two would seem peripheral - but plainly, they are central. Why?

U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Hogan's opinion in the case gives one clue. In discussing the sealed affidavit filed by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, Judge Hogan noted that "the government's focus has shifted as it has acquired additional information during the course of the investigation" and "now needs to pursue different avenues in order to complete its investigation." Though vague, these references are also significant.

The newly released paperback edition of the book by Plame's husband - former Ambassador Joseph Wilson - entitled The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Put the White House on Trial and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity, helps explain what Judge Hogan may have been getting at, and what that sealed affidavit may say.

The World Of Fog Facts: Interpreting the Public Information on the Plame Leak

The Plame investigation well-illustrates the role "fog facts" can play. Though a number of facts are known about the Plame investigation, so far they remain foggy: They have not revealed a suspect, nor have they explained the mystery described above, of why the investigation is focusing on the seemingly-peripheral Miller and Cooper. Yet there is considerable information available.


[ ... Here, Dean sketches a theory (as I understand it, and perhaps I don't) that the prosecution is moving to charge one or both parties on the ends of the telephone line, (i.e., the person in White House or the reporter), with perjury or obstruction of justice for lying about or misrepresenting being on the line. Which is to say, is not pursuing prosecution of the crime of publicizing a secret agent ...]


More evidence for this theory comes from the fact that Cooper reportedly provided Pincus-style cooperation (times, dates, but no names) - yet Fitzgerald is still going after Cooper, to force him to testify.

Accounting For Special Counsel Fitzgerald's Investigative Shift

For months, it has been rumored that Fitzgerald has found only a low-level leaker in the White House - one who seems not to have violated the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which makes it a crime to disclose an undercover CIA operative. But it is only criminal if the leaker knew the name was classified, and that the CIA sought to keep it classified. [nota bene: Criminal if ... the name was classified, -- refutes Anon.10:21 commenter: "... to protect secret agents in the field."] (A low-level person might not have had this knowledge.)

If so, that's odd. Remember, Novak credited two "senior" Administration sources. But let's suppose it's true. In that event, it is quite likely - and many lawyers following the case believe - that the investigation has shifted to possible charges of perjury and/or obstruction of justice, more than likely by big fish.

That would explain Judge Hogan's comment that the focus of the investigation, according to the government affidavit, has shifted. It would explain why a seasoned prosecutor has gone after Miller and Cooper, and why a number of federal judges have seen no problem in his doing so.

Finally, it would also explain why Cooper and Miller might now be central players: Their testimony may be needed to make a case of perjury or obstruction of justice.

When Do The Media Become Complicit In Criminal Leaking, Perjury, or Obstruction of Justice?

There is no privilege in the law that protects criminal activity. Not for lawyers, not for priests, not for doctors -- and not for journalists. And I believe it unlikely that the Supreme Court would create one with this case.

So Cooper and Miller will very probably have to decide whether to defy the law - and go to jail - or testify before the grand jury. They should testify: What a shame it would be if they were to go to jail to protect law-breakers in the White House.

Indeed, if they do not testify, they are arguably complicit in the crimes that the Special Counsel believes have occurred. There must be a line: At some point, in protecting sources committing crimes, newspersons themselves become complicit in those crimes. ...


John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the president.

Friday, July 01, 2005 12:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

THIS JUST IN...

Newsweek and The McLaughlin Group both report the President's brain... college dropout Karl Rove... outted CIA agent Valerie Plame for fun and profit. It's on tape and in the emails.

So, will Karl be tried for treason and sent to prison for 10 years, like the law says?

Not with Lapdog Media here to save his bacon! Woof!

Saturday, July 02, 2005 3:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Decaf said...

John Dean:
There is no privilege in the law that protects criminal activity. Not for lawyers, not for priests, not for doctors -- and not for journalists.

Don't I remember that law enforcement was forbidden by the courts to tape when a priest came to the jail to receive a prisoner's confession? And has the privilege of the marriage bed been struck down?

Also Dean:
For months, it has been rumored that Fitzgerald has found only a low-level leaker in the White House ...

If so, that's odd. Remember, Novak credited two "senior" Administration sources.


Don't suppose it's possible that Bob invented his anonymous sources, do you? Why does he still have a job, anyway?

Saturday, July 02, 2005 9:55:00 PM  
Anonymous Simp said...

I doubt you'll see Rove tried for Treason. The law is murky and hinges a lot on intent and timing in this case.

At this point it looks like a charges of perjury and/or obstruction of justice are more likely. As Rove apparently told the grand jury that he only mentioned Plame's name after Novak's column was published. This appears to be false.

Rove's lawyer is claiming that Rove never mentioned Plame to Cooper. O'Donnell has made additional comments after the show saying that this is not true.

Sunday, July 03, 2005 11:16:00 AM  
Anonymous Simp said...

Also remember that Rove also told the FBI... that circulating the information was a legitimate means to counter what he claimed was politically motivated criticism of the Bush administration by Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

Sunday, July 03, 2005 11:20:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's great -- John Dean, former counsel to the president. That should read, John Dean, former convicted counsel to the president.

Tuesday, July 05, 2005 9:36:00 AM  
Blogger cc Infopage said...

.

Hotmail News by www.infopage.cc - Oct. 17, 2005


Microsoft to Test New Hotmail Interface (AnandTech)
For those of you that use Hotmail, Microsoft is testing a new user interface for the popular web-based email client: Microsoft is preparing to publicly test its new front end Hotmail, code-named "Kahuna" and simply branded: Mail Beta. The upgrade will support an AJAX-based interface that has been rewritten from the ground up using...

AOL Offers $299 PC (Connected Home Media)
Everyone's favorite dominant ISP introduced an intriguing offer this week: Agree to use AOL for a year, and you can purchase a low-end PC from the company for just $299. Although the deal seems like a bid to stem the flow of subscribers eager to get out from under the multicolored, dumbed-down AOL interface, the offer actually appears to be decent, assuming you're not into playing the latest 3-D games. Of course, you can get a decent Dell system for not much more than the cost of the AOL PC plus the service (about $585 when you add it all up).

Preview of New MSN Hotmail (Slashdot)
An anonymous reader writes "Here is a Preview of a new MSN Hotmail system, using AJAX. Currently in Beta testing." Most interesting is how the user interface more closely resembles a traditional local application. It's definitely a big step in that direction.

Free Anonymous Proxies by www.jeepee.biz

Have a nice day,
jeepee

Delivered by Infopage.cc: 30,000 daily updated Information Pages about all kind of subjects

Monday, October 17, 2005 10:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Very cool blog you got! I just added you to my bookmarks!

I have a great article resource you might want to check out.

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 6:54:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hello, just happened to locate your blog on desktop publisher. I wanted to say thank you for having an informative blog like this. If you have a chance, please drop by my site. We provide fresh resources on desktop publisher. I will be sure and bookmark your site and return again. Thanks, Larry

Saturday, October 22, 2005 12:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!

I have a media advertising site. It pretty much covers media advertising related stuff.

Come and check it out if you get time :-)

Monday, October 24, 2005 9:46:00 PM  
Blogger Brian said...

Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!

I have a advertising ame business mlm opportunity site/blog. It pretty much covers advertising ame business mlm opportunity related stuff.

Come and check it out if you get time :-)

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 7:13:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to visit again! Please feel free to visit my blog too at http://rushprnews.iuplog.com, RushPRnews Daily Gazette.
My site is ** RushPRnews press release services, distribution and free web posting** . Cordially, Anne Laszlo-Howard

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 7:47:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think you're right on track and not many people are willing to admit that they share your views. matthew fox height is an AWESOME place to discuss LOST.

Friday, October 28, 2005 5:51:00 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Good blog but without advertising promotion you have little chance of selling anything.

Monday, October 31, 2005 12:02:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Online adult sex shop. Come and browse over 900 quality items. We have a great selection of Fantasy Outfits, *KEYWORD** including Fantasy Outfits Fantasy Outfits Fantasy Outfits Fantasy Outfits and Fantasy Outfits all ready for immediate dispatch today.Fantasy Outfits

Friday, November 04, 2005 8:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Online adult sex shop. Come and browse over 900 quality items. We have a great selection of Fantasy Outfits, *KEYWORD** including Fantasy Outfits Fantasy Outfits Fantasy Outfits Fantasy Outfits and Fantasy Outfits all ready for immediate dispatch today.Fantasy Outfits

Saturday, November 05, 2005 3:07:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I got one of thoseXL Lace Top Stockings fromXL Lace Top Stockings was the best treat ever

Thursday, November 10, 2005 7:10:00 AM  
Blogger Home Based Business said...

Unusual blog. I liked the site its from so much I
have to visit it again! I surf the web for blogs like
yours in my spare time.
Where you been? You have got to look at my home based business for sale blog!

Monday, February 20, 2006 6:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi there! While out blog surfing today for specific info on as seen on tv logo, I ended up on your page. Your site shows that I ended up a little off base...funny how we end up finding things while we surf. Should you ever need it, there is plenty of information on this site about as seen on tv logo.

Friday, February 24, 2006 4:03:00 PM  
Anonymous agent moscow airline malaysian travel said...

Your blog I found to be very interesting!
I just came across your blog and wanted to
drop you a note telling you how impressed I was with
the information you have posted here.
I have a agent moscow airline malaysian travel
site.
Come and check it out if you get time :-)
Best regards!

Sunday, July 30, 2006 9:09:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog. I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your home based business review blog.

Saturday, October 21, 2006 8:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding your blog - high speed internet access hotel. I have just signed up to talktalk broadband and is an absolutely superb deal. I get free telephone calls 24/7 plus free 8Mb/s broadband (which is lightening fast btw). I would definitely recommend talktalk broadband for anyone in the uk. Also available at www.bargainplace.co.uk

Thursday, February 15, 2007 9:03:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home