« To err is human | Main | Bush Exempts Navy from Environmental Law, Anti-submarine training to proceed despite left-wing enviro lawsuit »

Lost In The Shuffle

Thanks to the fine fellows over at Powerline, I found this rather remarkable article about President Bush and Secretary of State Rice, and their latest plans for the Mideast peace process.

As is usual in such cases, the most fascinating parts are those that are not mentioned, and it takes a bit of digging to find the real substantive portions.

The "road map" for peace, conceived in 2002 by Mr. Bush, had become a hindrance to the peace process, because the first requirement was that the Palestinians stop terrorist attacks.

As a result, every time there was a terrorist bombing, the peace process fell apart and went back to square one. Neither side ever began discussing the "core issues": the freezing of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the rights of Palestinian refugees to return, the outline of Israel's border and the future of Jerusalem.

"The reason that we haven't really been able to move forward on the peace process for a number of years is that we were stuck in the sequentiality of the road map. So you had to do the first phase of the road map before you moved on to the third phase of the road map, which was the actual negotiations of final status," Miss Rice said.

(emphasis added)

Let's strip away the niceties and boil it down to its essence:

In 2002, the Road Map spelled out that before anything else could be done, the Palestinians had to stop killing Israelis.

Five years later, the rockets and sniper attacks and bombings have continued. The Palestinians, given the chance to reject terrorism, instead chose to wholeheartedly embrace it by electing Hamas by overwhelming margins. In brief, they've shown that they are completely and utterly dedicated to achieving their goals by violence, not negotiations.

And what is the response of the Bush administration?

"OK!"

In the long run, there is no single more important issue than that the Palestinians show that they are, indeed, interested in peace. That they are willing to reject violence and carnage and bloodshead and become civilized.

The whole point of the "road map" was to move the Palestinians and the Israelis away from fighting. To show them (mainly the Palestinians) that violence would NOT be rewarded, that the days of the old cycle were over.

Just to recap, here's the cycle of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations:

1) International community leans on both sides (mainly Israel) to negotiate.

2) Negotiations commence.

3) Grand plan announced, with lofty aspirations and goals for both sides.

4) Israel is called upon to begin the process by making concessions.

4a) (Sometimes) Israel is called upon to make additional, non-negotiated concessions as "good faith" gestures. These usually involve releasing terrorists or giving up territory.

5) Palestinians complain that they can not keep their end of the bargain.

6) Israel announces that it won't continue upholding its end until the Palestinians start upholding theirs.

7) New wave of terrorism hits Israel.

8) Israel says it's done making concessions.

9) Everyone blames Israel for the "failure of the peace process."

10) After a brief period, return to step 1 -- but with Israel's concessions from Step 4 now considered as the new "starting point."

In this case, the commitment wrung from the Palestinians was the simplest imaginable: stop killing the Israelis. Or, at least, cut it back a bit.

They couldn't even keep that simple commitment, and now the Bush administration wants to reward them for it.

So much for the Bush Doctrine, of not rewarding terrorism. And if Bush does push this through, his legacy will be precisely what he's trying to avoid -- Same Old Shit, just more dead innocents added to the pile.

Way to go, Mr. President. Way to go, Madame Secretary.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/27043.

Comments (40)

Damn Jay, that was a pathet... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Damn Jay, that was a pathetic whine and spittle contribution. D'you lose another bet to Karl Rove, or is this some rhetorical political version of PMS?

It's not as if ANY U.S. President has had success getting the P-nians to help themselves by chasing out the thugs in control there. These are the guys who sided with the Nazis in WW2, with the Soviets during the Cold War, and who found support from tyrants like Saddam in more recent days. But YOU figure it's Bush's fault he could not do what no one else could do?

Get real.

Reward aliens for illegal e... (Below threshold)
The_Basseteer:

Reward aliens for illegal entry and identity theft, reward terrorists and punish those who protect us.

No, DJ, I'm not blaming Bus... (Below threshold)

No, DJ, I'm not blaming Bush for failing. I'm blaming him for giving up, and deciding that "stop killing Israeli civilians" is too much to ask of the Palestinians. For deciding that terrorism WILL work. For deciding to sweep the endless rockets and bombs and shootings are "an obstacle to peace" that can be quietly swept under the rug. For putting his desire for a "legacy" to overwhelm principle and basic human decency.

As I said, when you strip down this new position, it boils down to "we want a peace agreement, no matter how many innocent victims of terrorists we have to sweep under the rug."

Thanks, but no thanks.

J.

You could not be more wrong... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

You could not be more wrong Jay, and what's more you have devolved to using the Donk tactics of lies and false accusation.

IF you actually read the article and pay attention to what was said, AND if you have been paying attention to what Dubs has actually said and done since taking office, you'd be posting a humble retraction instead of channeling WizBlue and Mike Savage's nasty lust child.

First, you of all people should know Bush's views on Palestinian behavior. Where Clinton invited Arafat to the White House, Dubs has refused to do so, and several times had angered the Left by refusing to 'respect' the 'credentials' of envoys sent by Hamas and Hezbollah. He has never demanded that Israel give up land or concede to demands, although he did negotiate a difficult promise to not retaliate for attacks on Israeli people, a promise usually tied to US commitment to act on Israel's behalf. Bush completely supported Israel's raid on the Syrian nuclear plant, and has NEVER worked against Israeli interests. I direct you to the Israeli response to Bush's visit (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/09/africa/prexy.php), especially the fact that Bush's visit to the Palestinians is not a smooch-fest, but a reminder "to get serious about their negotiations and their obligations". An Australian newspaper also reported that President Bush is "seen by many Israelis as the best friend the Jewish state has had in the White House". LexisNexis News (http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100022450&docId=l:726129632&start=8) reports the same observation.

The plain fact is, you will not find a stronger supporter for Israel in the Oval Office than GWB. Certainly, none of the current crop of wanna-be's will do as much for Israel.

So, what's going on? Unlike many people, Bush sees past the spin and understands what is going on, and how the arab media wants to spin peace talks. To put it bluntly, Iran and Syria and their ilk want to avoid Bush being seen as a peacemaker, so they try to create a condition where anything Bush does will look like appeasement or provocation. Instead, Bush is crafting negotiations which can show the Palestinian people what is possible, with the enacting of that agreement dependant on their accomplishment of the key provisions. That is, the Palestinian people will be able to see just what can come to pass if they reject terrorism and the corruption of Hamas and Hezbollah and Al Fatah, but they will also be made to understand that there is no chance, at all, until they renounce those thugs and the violence which has plagued the region for so many years.

To pretend that Bush has changed his conditions, is to lie about him. There's just no truth at all to such a claim.

DJ, you've got mail.<... (Below threshold)

DJ, you've got mail.

J.

Thanks Jay. Trouble is, I ... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Thanks Jay. Trouble is, I can't pull it up where I'm at, I will have to wait until I get home.

Then shoot me an e-mail fro... (Below threshold)

Then shoot me an e-mail from an address I can forward it to -- preferably to my Wizbang account.

J.

Jay: First, keep i... (Below threshold)

Jay:

First, keep in mind that DJ's knee jerks anytime someone says anything the least bit critical of Bush.

As for Bush being such a supporter of Israel, ask the Israeli soldiers whose attack on Hezbollah was undermined by both Rice and Bush. Instead of voicing public support for the attack and blaming Hezbollah for the loss of life of 'innocent' Lebanese, they went with the standard Foggy Bottom script, moaning about proportionality, blaming Israel for the loss of civilian lives, questioning whether Israel's use of weapons violated agreements, and pressuring Israel to call it off and back off.

I'd also throw in some criticism of the Israelis who are too stupid to see that they're playing Charlie Brown to the Palestinians' Lucy. I can't count the number of times they've fallen for the same ploy.

There's a reason I call it ... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

There's a reason I call it "The War on (Some) Terror".
(stolen from Spoons, who gets mad if I don't credit him for it).

And yes, taking that off as the first "concession" from the Palestinians rewards terrorism.
Bush was strong, for a while, when they "elected" Hamas, but he was always squishy on this. I wish Cox and Forkum had better searching capabilities because I could link to a bunch of their cartoons about it. Like the one with Bush and Powell holding each other singing, "Give peace a chance" in front of a wrecked, twisted, burning Israeli bus.
And the Hamas "election" victory has always bothered me. It was not quite as undemocratic as a commie or Saddam election, but it wasn't far away.
When your choices are "We want to kill Jews but we can speak nicely in English" and "We want to kill Jews" you don't really have a choice.
If anybody had run on a "Hey, let's be nice to Israel" platform, they would have been dragged through the streets on hooks and hung from telephone poles as "collaborators".
That's why there are no Palestinian Ghandis, they're all dead.

DJ, Jay, I think y... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:

DJ, Jay,

I think you both have good points, but from different perspectives. While our President sometimes does things that make me go "WTF?", I also understand there are more than likely circumstances the public is not privy to.

Though I tend to react from Jay's perspective from what we see outwardly, I keep a mental-safety-net that the President is working in our (and Israel's) best interests. In this respect, DJ is correct that GWB has been a friend to Israel.

Just my 3 cents (inflation)

Thanks Son-GF, that's what ... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Thanks Son-GF, that's what I'm getting at. We cannot trust the MSM to report things accurately, and far too often people look at things from a very short-sighted distance. Israel's leaders are a very candid bunch, and not given to hypocritical gestures just to look good on camera. So when Olmert and Sharon agree that Bush is good for Israel, it's a lot more credible to me than what gets reported by someone speaking from too short a perspective for history, and too far removed from the facts to understand the context.

I feel like I am watching a... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

I feel like I am watching a family fight. JT and DJ, to of my favorites. I would like to negotiate a peace between you two. First, JT, stop lobbing emails at DJ. When you do that, we can go to phase 2 which is singing Kumbaya.

I have been alive a number of years and I do not remember ever hearing anything but problems from the middle east. I am sure there are a number of things going on behind the scenes we do not know. I think Rice has a pretty good understanding of what needs to be done. I say give GW the benefit of at least trying something new. ww

Bush is crafting negotia... (Below threshold)
Jack:

Bush is crafting negotiations which can show the Palestinian people what is possible, with the enacting of that agreement dependant on their accomplishment of the key provisions. That is, the Palestinian people will be able to see just what can come to pass if they reject terrorism and the corruption of Hamas and Hezbollah and Al Fatah, but they will also be made to understand that there is no chance, at all, until they renounce those thugs and the violence which has plagued the region for so many years.

I have a bridge that I'd like to sell you. Nice propaganda but it is not based upon reality.

Dubya is making the same mistake Clinton made. If he stopped worrying about his legacy and spent more time on planet Earth we might see some progress.

WW, we are civilized here a... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

WW, we are civilized here at Wizbang, and the Kumbaya-non-proliferation Treaty of 2001 remains in effect; no member may possess or use the lyrics or melody of that song.

Instead, we have replaced 'Kumbaya' with a number of alternatives:

"Live Like You Were Dying", Tim McGraw

"Voice of America", Alex Stangl

"Military Way of Life", Tarey Wolf

"Storm in the Desert", Sam Fasano III

"Ballad of Junior", Alton Rex

or

"Courtesy of the Red, White, & Blue", Toby Keith

Jack, the ONLY valid compar... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Jack, the ONLY valid comparison between Dubya and Bubba, is that Dubs had to clean up after Clinton.

say give GW the benefit... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

say give GW the benefit of at least trying something new. ww

For a while he was trying something new, not negotiating with terrorists.
Now? He's suggesting that not only can you negotiate with them (as has been done for my whole life), but he's not even demanding that they stop being terrorists to get rewarded.

Look at the Clinton/Barak attempt to negotiate. What did Arafat do upon Israel offering almost everything they claimed they wanted? Did he negotiate for more? Nope, he went home and started another Intifada. They don't want to negotiate anything except the expulsion of Jews from the Middle East.

If Mexicans were lobbing rockets across the border because they wanted California and Texas back, I'm pretty sure we'd let the Air Force, Marines and Army do our "negotiating".

DJ, if the Israelis are so ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

DJ, if the Israelis are so behind Bush why are some quitting the government in protest of his plan?

JERUSALEM - A hawkish faction in Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's coalition pulled out of the government on Wednesday, weakening him at a time when he needs broad support to reach a peace deal with the Palestinians by the end of the year.

"but he's not even demandin... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

"but he's not even demanding that they stop being terrorists to get rewarded." - veeshir.

Show me, please, where that is specifically stated by the Bush Administration, or else admit it for the lie it is.

The Bush Administration is going around the thugs in control, and establishing a framework for - if and when - the Palestinians comply with the first step. The first step was NEVER abandoned, Bush is simply working against the Arab spin, something you seem unable to understand.

I would like to apologize h... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

I would like to apologize here to Jay for the tone of my first two comments. While I disagree - strongly - with the impetus of the article and its inferred insults, I do not want to suggest that I do not respect Mr. Tea or his opinion, nor do I wish to suggest that the concerns of people worried about the effect of diplomacy wasted on monsters like the Palestinian's crude mockery of self-government should be ignored or insulted.

Jack, the ONLY valid com... (Below threshold)
Jack:

Jack, the ONLY valid comparison between Dubya and Bubba, is that Dubs had to clean up after Clinton.

Not really. Dubya is making the same ignorant, ill-informed and moronic comments about peace that Clinton made. He is making tremendous mistakes.

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5373

"We cannot negotiate with t... (Below threshold)

"We cannot negotiate with those who say, 'What's mine is mine, and what's yours is negotiable.'"
~ Ronald Reagan

Another requirement for a successful peace negotiation is that both sides want peace. I don't think that has ever been demonstrated here.

President Bush is following his predecessors in making an effort, but any effort is doomed from the start until and unless the Palestinians decide they genuinely want peace and begin to negotiate in good faith.

Well Jack, I don't see it t... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Well Jack, I don't see it that way. I see Dubya is finding a different way to send the message, and while Mr. Pipes is entitled to his opinion, if both sides are going to participate in negotiations, they have to be able to discuss all the relevant points, including "right of return". I don't support that "right", and I do not believe the President does either. Saying this point will be discussed should not be taken to mean he will press for it or even allow it as Mr. Pipes describes the phrase.

It really comes down to force or reason. President Bush is giving them a good opportunity to be reasonable, but there's nothing in his visit or gesture which commits him to agree to anything which hurts U.S. interests. From past behavior, it is obvious that Bush wants a strong, secure Israel, something far different from the Clinton template.

WOWDisagreement.</... (Below threshold)
epador:

WOW

Disagreement.

Civil Discourse.

Point and Counter Point.

Even some humor.

And not one DIsemvowelment.

YEAH for WB and commentors (so far).

Well I really have been up ... (Below threshold)
Rory:

Well I really have been up in the air about this- I really can't figure out the why, particularly given the timing.

Just who is trying to get leverage.

In the end though I think the Israelis themselves have not been unified have sent mixed signals, and they've backed away and been less consistent on the "Bush Doctrine" in fact they took the lead on this.

The Olmert mess, for example.

Yet somehow no one gets mad at the Israeli's themselves, or the messed up Knesset like they do President Bush.

For some reason Bush catches the hate, the rath like no other party.

alarge part of the Israeli public and their elected officials are to the Left of Bush, where is the outrage?

And just how exactly is Bush suppose to go against that?

It's paternalistic on our part to not say that Israel hasn't led itself down the path away from "The Bush Doctrine" hell everyone had run from him- his own party has weakened his postion-where is the support?

If you vilify the President on his credibility, and on other "issues" nearer and dearer are you so naive to think that doesn't effect his strength on the international scene?

Law of unintended consequences....

DJ, you must have written J... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

DJ, you must have written JT's email to you verbatim. Just kidding.

You and JT are offering up a good fair fight. I know you have respect for one another. I been hanging around here long enough to know that. ww

if both sides are going ... (Below threshold)
Jack:

if both sides are going to participate in negotiations, they have to be able to discuss all the relevant points, including "right of return". I don't support that "right", and I do not believe the President does either. Saying this point will be discussed should not be taken to mean he will press for it or even allow it as Mr. Pipes describes the phrase.

DJ,

Dubya introduced something that no other POTUS has and for good reason. It is not a relevant point and frankly this visit is a complete waste of time as was Annapolis.

Abbas does not speak for the Pals. Gaza is controlled by Hamas. Hamas doesn't accept Israel and has repeatedly stated that they are still committed to its destruction.

Hamas kicked the crap out of Fatah and given the chance will do it again.

Olmert is under fire at home for being one of the worst PMs ever.

In short Dubya is still imitating Clinton. Both men tried to push along peace without having the proper conditions established.

I explained my reasons, Jac... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

I explained my reasons, Jack. They have not changed, nor do I consider them disproven. Attacks against Bush on this issue are simply not based on valid evidence, but appear - to me - to be projection of personal pique.

Who gave up Kfar Darom, Net... (Below threshold)
Rory:

Who gave up Kfar Darom, Netzarim, and Morag?

Then if you know the answer to that-just what in the hell was Bibi up to?

He gave his assurances that he was on board waited fro the disengagement commitment and then decided to do an about face....

What for? to gain ultimate control of Likud?

And just where is Likud now?

Politics is local and the divisions can be ill afforded yet they are pursued...

Sorry but you cannot blame Bush for Israel's own turn down a divergent path.

I explained my reasons, ... (Below threshold)
Jack:

I explained my reasons, Jack. They have not changed, nor do I consider them disproven.

You're entitled to believe that the world is flat.Just as I am entitled to point out that your position isn't based in reality.

I'd love to say that you are right and that Dubya was this great supporter of Israel, but he is not. What has he accomplished?

He didn't invite Arafat to the White House? Tremendous. He didn't accept Hamas or Hezbollah. Wow, that is impressive.

The facts remain. He is engaging with someone who doesn't speak for the Palestinians. It is a complete waste of time. Look at what Jeff Jacoby has to say.

When George W. Bush succeeded Bill Clinton, he was determined not to replicate his predecessor's blunders in the Middle East, a determination that intensified after 9/11. Yet now he too has succumbed to the messianism that leads US presidents to imagine they can resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. Clinton's legacy in this arena was the second intifada, which drenched the region in blood. To what fresh hell will Bush's diplomacy lead?


DJ, you're a real asshole, ... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

DJ, you're a real asshole, you know that?
You really should try being civil with those who disagree with you for once in your rude, obnoxious life and see how much more nicely people will treat you, jerk.

Since you ask so rudely by accusing me of being a liar, you freaking rude, obnoxious, stupid, partisan hack, I'll respond just as rudely you moron
From the linked article
or the fact that the Palestinians haven't fully been able to deal with the terrorist infrastructure and prevent that from moving forward on the negotiations
The terrorist infrastructure of course being Hamas and Fatah, the gov't of the Palestinian terrortories.

You know, you learned nothing from last week's dust-up with doubleplusundead, you're just a rude, uncivil, partisan hack of an idiot.

Have you noticed that I've not responded to anything you say since our dust-up over the summer? That's because I don't respect you at all intellectually, at all. So why don't you do me the favor of ignoring me? Okay you rude, uncivil, partisan hack of a jerk?

I'll save this comment because I know you'll disemvowel me because you can't take dissent, like the rude, obnoxious, partisan hack of a jerk you are.
Jerk.

Good morning, Veeshir. Now... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Good morning, Veeshir. Now why would I want to tamper with your screed at all? Your overdone invective dismantles any credible argument you might otherwise have presented.

Now why would I want to ... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

Now why would I want to tamper with your screed at all? Your overdone invective dismantles any credible argument you might otherwise have presented.

Translation: You were correct and I'm too small a man to admit it.

And what's funnier? You started out by assuming I was a liar and you are too small to admit that you were wrong to do that too.

You're what's wrong with the Internet.

Sorry that you're angry, Ve... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Sorry that you're angry, Veeshir, but yeah you went overboard. Your statement is not supported by the facts. You and others keep trying to sell the claim that the first leg, 'stop killing Israelis', was abandoned, when in fact what is happening is that it remains in place. What has changed, is that the U.S. wants to reach an agreement which would go into effect when - and only when - the Palestinian Authority meets its obligations. That will probably never happen, but having negotiations won't hurt in that case, and if - by God's grace - the PA gets working under someone with a human conscience and decent moral values, this framework allows for the promise of real hope.

Sorry that bothers you so much, but I can't help you there. You DID make a statement which appears to be a deliberate distortion of the facts.

So still calling me a liar?... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

So still calling me a liar? Classy guy. You are really a freaking asshole.

So how is this statement: but he's not even demanding that they stop being terrorists to get rewarded.

not supported by this
or the fact that the Palestinians haven't fully been able to deal with the terrorist infrastructure and prevent that from moving forward on the negotiations?

When the "terrorists infrastructure" is the gov't? (Hamas and Fatah) and they're saying they will negotiate with them even though they're lobbing rockets each and every day into Israel.

See? That's why I said you learned nothing from your dust-up with doublepluss undead, you automatically assume that a difference of opinion makes the other person a liar and go with it.
You have no idea how to have a civil disagreement, you attack the person without trying to disprove what they said. I pointed out what I believed supported my argument, but did you address that? No, you called me a liar once again You DID make a statement which appears to be a deliberate distortion of the facts. I pointed out exactly what I believe supported my statement, you ignored that.

You are a real piece of work and a real icehole. You should just stick to arguing with 10 year olds, but then, you probably have no comeback for "Eat shit sideways" but to call the little girl a liar.

So, repeating yourself make... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

So, repeating yourself makes your claim more valid, Veeshir?

Not where I went to school.

Your continued ad hominem attack is also indicative of a weak argument, I'd say.

I'd like to backtrack somew... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

I'd like to backtrack somewhat on the 'lie' accusation, Veeshir. I honestly thought you were deliberately twisting the facts, though it seems you may just be reading things into the story which are not there.

Go back, read the news story carefully, and you will note that nowhere does Bush or Rice say that the PA does not have to renounce terrorism. That condition remains in effect, as I thought I had made clear; any contention otherwise is incorrect.

So, repeating yourself m... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

So, repeating yourself makes your claim more valid, Veeshir?

See? Still being a jerk. I repeated it and noted why I was doing so, an attempt to get you to address my point (which you still haven't) instead of just attacking me (which you still are). You claim that I read something in that I shouldn't have without explaining why that is so or even really understanding what I said.

Where did I say that they said that the Palestinians didn't have to renounce terrorism? I said that they would remove it as the first condition for negotiation.

Reread my two comments from above.

And still no apology for calling me a liar? I guess I should be happy you are big enough to "backtrack" but still...

Wait, "Backtrack somewhat"?... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

Wait, "Backtrack somewhat"? So you're still calling me somewhat a liar?
You really are a piece of work.

How about an apology? I know I'll never get it, I've dealt with you before.

Veeshir, tone it down. We c... (Below threshold)

Veeshir, tone it down. We can disagree without being disagreeable.

And we will.

J.

So he calls me a liar and I... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

So he calls me a liar and I have to tone it down?

Adios.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy