Two Neocons Solving the Worlds Problems

Sunday, November 21, 2004

Shrub in a "Scrum"

This shoving match between the Secret Service and Chilean security was reported like it was no big deal.

The story that most of the news services agreed on was that the President was separated from his lead Secret Service agent momentarily by some overzealous Chilean security officers. There was some pushing and yelling. Bush jumped in - was resisted for just an instant, but then was able to pull his agent into the room. Problem solved.

Eager to be diplomatic, the White House downplayed the incident, "Chilean security tried to stop the president's Secret Service from accompanying him," said White House deputy press secretary Claire Buchan. "He told them they were with him and the issue was resolved."

Reporters have alternatively described the President's mood afterward as "irritated" and "proud of himself." Probably both descriptions are right. But there was more to this incident than generally reported. The Washington Times has the real story:

Mr. Bush and first lady Laura Bush arrived at 8 p.m. local time yesterday at the Estacion Mapocho Cultural Center for the official dinner of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit.

After the first couple posed for photos with Chilean President Ricardo Lagos and his wife, the four entered the doorway with a line of Chilean security guards and uniformed police closing quickly behind him.

The president's lead agent approached the line of men as quickly as it closed and demanded to be allowed through. Within a few seconds, the confrontation began to escalate with voices being raised and shoving in all directions.

"You're not stopping me! You're not stopping me!" yelled the agent, as captured by several television cameras. "I'm with the president."

During the fracas, another Secret Service agent was roughly pulled from the tumult and pushed against a concrete wall by Chilean security…

Mr. Bush calmly turned right as the other three continued on and inserted himself into the fight. The president reached over two rows of Chilean security guards, grabbed his lead agent by the shoulder of his suit jacket and began to pull…

A few Chilean guards turned their heads and noticed that the arm draped over their shoulders was that of the president, and the line softened. Mr. Bush pulled his agent through, who was heard to say, "Get your hands off me" as he passed roughly through the doorway.

Mr. Bush then adjusted his shirt cuff and said something to the first dignitary he passed as a grin crossed his face.

According to Secret Service sources, the man Mr. Bush pulled through is a high-level agent and one of the president's personal favorites…
All of this is much better reporting than I read elsewhere, but then it really got interesting:

The Secret Service source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the president's security detail and that the Chileans had argued about security procedures all day and that he wasn't surprised to see last night's skirmish unfold.

The Chileans, he said, were determined to take charge of security, but the president of the United States is the only world leader who takes his bodyguards with him wherever he goes. Normally, foreign countries defer to that demand. The Chilean security detail resisted, the source said, and was determined to take a stand at the dinner.

"That's what the argument this afternoon was about," he said. "I saw this coming."

Chilean security knew that the Secret Service always accompanies the president and knows how to identify them by the pins on their lapels, the source said, but blocked them anyway.
I understand the White House's desire to be diplomatic about this incident, but the fact that Chilean Security Agents purposefully separated the President from his security detail is very troubling.

This was about honor, not intrigue, but we are a country at war and there are people who would like to assassinate the President. Our Secret Service protects our President wherever he goes. If some Banty Rooster security force is too macho to accept that, then that country should not get a Presidential visit. Period.

The Secret Service should learn from this incident and make sure that this sort of conflict is worked out long before the President arrives.

One news service described this incident as a "scrum." I had never heard this word before in my life. From the context I was sure it simply meant "scuffle," but I looked it up.

It’s a Rugby term - "a play in Rugby in which the two sets of forwards mass together around the ball and, with their heads down, struggle to gain possession of the ball." The British have taken this term out of Rugby to apply it to any "disordered or confused situation involving a number of people" particularly, I assume, when there is a struggle.

"Scrum" is a apt description of what happened. The "ball" being fought over wasn't the agent, the "ball" was the right to guard the President. The President must have known about this conflict in advance. Knowing this, he was brave to insert himself into the fight. Doing so quickly pacified the situation.

This could have escalated, everybody involved was armed.

UPDATE I: Here's a video link found at Dean's World.

UPDATE II: A commenter pointed me to this AP story:
An elaborate state dinner with 200 people Sunday was downgraded to an official working dinner, reportedly because Chilean President Ricardo Lagos balked at Secret Service demands for guests to walk through metal detectors.
I beginning to doubt whether this is just about honor. There is some bad blood between this President and the current leadership of Chile. I hope that the President and his Secret Service are careful and that he gets home soon.

43 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't mess with Texas.

November 21, 2004 at 9:17 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

AP is reporting that the state dinner planned for later that night was cancelled because "Chile was unwilling to accept security measures sought by the U.S. Secret Service, including a demand that all guests pass through metal detectors." Considering that metal detectors are required at public schools, it seems reasonable that theyd be a good idea at a gathering including leaders from US/Russia/Phillipines/Indonesia, all of which are struggling with terrorists.

November 21, 2004 at 9:27 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

President Bush will be visiting Canada before the end of the year too. There's another place where security will be a concern. While Canada gives the appearance of stability, extreme leftists have hijacked the political agenda there and multiculturalism has allowed Canada's institutions to be infiltrated by terrorist sympathizers and possibly sleeper agents. I hope the President's security is re-examined after his Chilian adventure.

November 21, 2004 at 11:20 AM

 
Blogger Dean Esmay said...

"Scrum" is an interesting term all right, but I myself had never heard the term "banty rooster" as you used it here. I know an old blues song by that title. If I understand your meaning correctly, you mean they're sort of strutting cocks?

November 21, 2004 at 2:41 PM

 
Blogger Ghost of a flea said...

I am no great defender of the Canadian government but that last comment is overly dramatic. I would be astonished if the security provided at the President's visit to Canada is anything but airtight, professional and coordinated fully with the Secret Service.

November 21, 2004 at 2:44 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Canada is rapidly decaying into Dutch-like paralysis as a result of political correctness, but the RCMP remains reasonably competent.

November 21, 2004 at 3:21 PM

 
Blogger Beyond Words said...

The President needs to give lessons to the NBA on deescalating a scuffle.

November 21, 2004 at 4:37 PM

 
Blogger Stephen Gordon said...

Dean:

Heh. A Banty Rooster is tiny, but he acts like he's the toughest rooster in the yard. He doesn't have the good sense to differ to larger birds.

Kathy:

I can hear W now, "Well guys, for starters, you don't go into the stands."

November 21, 2004 at 5:16 PM

 
Blogger Grumpy Old Man said...

The man stood up -- physically -- for someone who works for him.

Good for him! In his way, he showed the same sense of honor and courage the Army and Marines showed in Falluja.

November 21, 2004 at 5:57 PM

 
Blogger Brandon said...

first, he did what basically anyone in that situation would have done. It was the right thing, but let's not overly glorify it.

Second, comparing his actions to those of our soldiers in fallujah, where there is a very real risk of having your brains blown out, or your limbs ripped off, is simply moronic...

get a clue.

November 21, 2004 at 9:07 PM

 
Blogger Doug said...

Flea, those of us who read Mark Steyn regularly have a low view of the prudence of the Canadian government. On Steyn's account, the Canadian borders are more porous than our own, the correct attitude toward Islamic radicalism is soft, the Canadian left envies the U.S. at the same time that it holds itself to be morally superior. If Canada is cooperative, it is resentfully cooperative only through weakness and dependency. Laxity toward Islam, envy and resentment of the U.S., and personal and political dislike of President Bush are sufficient reasons for the U.S. not to make favorable assumptions about Canada's seriousness regarding the security of the President. If we're wrong in these views, it's nevertheless up to the Canadian government to rehabilitate its own reputation.

November 21, 2004 at 9:10 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Treat foreign opinion with disdain, and this sort of reception is what you can expect.

Let's make a list of countries where fascists like Bush are not welcome, shall we?

November 21, 2004 at 9:50 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fascist - get a clue. I can only think that you are one of those Trolls everyone talks about.

Maybe you are from the lets all be friends crowd. If we only talk things will get better.

Remember Rwanda and look at Sudan - talk and no action. The killing goes on. But that's ok because everyone will be very sorry afterwards.

There is a difference between being popular and doing the right thing.

November 22, 2004 at 1:48 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Brandon-
I can't imagine a situation where President Clinton would have done what President Bush did. He would have smiled, laughed, and continued on, or ordered a diplomat to take care of the situation. Therefore, he didn't do what anyone would have done- he went much further. President Bush, like it or not, did put his own life on the line retrieving that Secret Service agent. Did you even see a picture of how many people were involved? There were at least dozens, many of whom probably do not like President Bush very much, or even hate him. Comparing him to a soldier in Fallujah might be an exaggeration, but if you think he's not personally hated more than any of the soldiers in Iraq, your delusional. In that sense, his risk of death is at least as high as those brave men in Iraq and Afghanistan, and probably higher. He earned his agents' respect, and strengthened mine, because of his lack of hesitation in a tense situation. It's a great thing that he was reelected.

November 22, 2004 at 8:40 AM

 
Blogger What? said...

Maybe I've seen the Godfather to many times, but I found this incident highly disturbing. I find the notion that Chilian security would try to separate Bush from the Secret Service highly suspicious.

November 22, 2004 at 9:00 AM

 
Blogger Phil said...

"The Secret Service should learn from this incident and make sure that this sort of conflict is worked out long before the President arrives."

I think the first lesson should be that categorically stating the US position does not amount to reaching a resolution. The President of the United States is a visiting dignitary in Chile, not a Roman Emperor paying a call on a subject kingdom. The fact that "we always do it that way" means absolutely bupkis to a Chilean security agent. If his orders were to let the President through, but no one else, he is going to carry out those orders and he is right to attempt to do so.

"This was about honor, not intrigue, but we are a country at war and there are people who would like to assassinate the President. Our Secret Service protects our President wherever he goes. If some Banty Rooster security force is too macho to accept that, then that country should not get a Presidential visit. Period."

We should never compromise the President's security. He should always be under the protection of his secret service agents. But that "banty rooster" attitude is not helpful; in fact, it may have significantly contributed to this incident. We should have negotiated something with the Chileans ahead of time -- something that showed respect for the fact that we're in their country and they're calling the shots. If the other country has stated what the rules are, we can't expect to show up and enforce our rules instead. Maybe we really should opt out in a case like that.

November 22, 2004 at 10:53 AM

 
Blogger Stephen Gordon said...

Phil:

The "Banty Rooster" sentiment is my own - not a motto I would suggest for the diplomatic corps. :-)

We should respect other countries, but they should respect us as well. Too often multiculturalism or P.C. attitudes seep in where they have no business. Presidential security is one area that shouldn't succumb to such concerns.

Let me restate my position without the Banty crack: If a country is so defensive about its national honor that it can't allow the Secret Service to protect our President leaders when he visits, they shouldn't get a visit.

Our President is the biggest political target in the world. Other countries should understand that.

November 22, 2004 at 6:50 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

brandon it is you who is (very) foolish....
i suggest you explore the assassination and attack rates for the job of us president...it is one of the most dangerous jobs on the planet...

November 22, 2004 at 8:24 PM

 
Blogger Phil said...

"The "Banty Rooster" sentiment is my own - not a motto I would suggest for the diplomatic corps."

Professional diplomats need to use proper diplomatic terminology. How about "runts?" "Pipsqueaks?" "Nancy-boys?"

:-)

"Too often multiculturalism or P.C. attitudes seep in where they have no business. Presidential security is one area that shouldn't succumb to such concerns."

I don't think it's about multiculturalism or PC attitudes. It's like that scene in the Two Towers where Aragorn and company show up at Theoden's castle and are asked to surrender their weapons. Gandalf chides Aragron for not being willing to comply with the King's wishes. Aragorn explains that, normally, he would follow the house rules even at a humble woodman's cabin -- but with this particular sword, he is hesitant to do so.

That's the position we find oursleves in, here. It never occurs to Aragorn to say "Let me bring my sword in, or I'm leaving." Being himself a good king, he respects the rule of law. He recognizes that if he were to bring his sword in, it would be an exception to the norm, not something that he has the right to demand.

Of course, in that instance we will have to differ with Aragorn. As you said, Bush goes in with his sword or not at all. Aragorn left his behind.

Interestingly, in the movie Liberal Appeasement Weenie Viggo Mortenson gets the upper hand for a moment and hands the sword over without a moment's hesitation. Now THAT is PC crapola.

November 23, 2004 at 7:41 AM

 
Blogger Brandon said...

Obviously, im not saying the job of president isn't dangerous. I'm simply saying stopping to pull your bodyguard through a velvet rope line isn't all that big a deal, and certainly its silly to compare it to what's going on in Fallujah. Ludicrous, really....

As for how Clinton would have reacted, that's really speculation, but I still tend to think most people, probably clinton included, would have reacted in a very similar way...

And, we'll see if it's a great thing Bush got re-elected...there's at least as much chance the whole thing is going to hell in a handbasket as there is that he's going to be successful...

November 23, 2004 at 7:46 AM

 
Blogger Stephen Gordon said...

Phil:

"That's the position we find oursleves in, here. It never occurs to Aragorn to say "Let me bring my sword in, or I'm leaving." Being himself a good king, he respects the rule of law. He recognizes that if he were to bring his sword in, it would be an exception to the norm, not something that he has the right to demand."

I agree that our President doesn't have the right to demand admittance of his security detail in another country. He himself doesn't even have the right to go to another country without that country's permission.

So if he shows up at the door and they demand his sword, he must decide whether to surrender the sword and go in or not surrender and stay out. That's fair. I would argue (and I think you agreed in your last comment) that if this is the choice that's put to the President, in most cases it would be best to keep the sword and forgo the visit.

There are a couple of reasons that this situation is not the same as Aragorn's Two Towers visit.

First, Aragorn's visit was an absolute necessity for Aragorn. Aragorn had the choice put to him and he decided it was worth the risk of ambush inside and of weapon theft outside to surrender the sword and go in.

But the President's visit to Chile was of greater benefit to Chile than to the U.S. This visit was, in the President's opinion, valuable to U.S. interests or he wouldn't be there. But I don't think anyone would consider the trip invaluable (and, therefore, worth the President risking his life).

Second, Bush wasn't met "at the door" and told to surrender his weapons. He wasn't given the choice. Instead, he was lured into the hall under false assurances while his body guards were blocked outside.
The manly "you must surrender your weapons before going in" directive was replaced with this passive-aggressive Chilean manuever. Not cool.

Visitors should always respect the rights of their hosts, but hosts have duties too.

November 24, 2004 at 1:00 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would suggest that the fact that multi culturalism in Canada is seen to let possible terrorists into North America,is a concern for Canada, and not the United States. If anyone residing in Canada is Attempting to do dammage in the United States, they must first get there. It is well known that the U.S./Canada Border is well surveilled, and if any such terrorists are to enter the United states via this border, it would not be of Canada's fault alone, but also the fault of United States Border Agents who would have, in this scenario, failed to identify the terrorists, just as much as the Canadian border agents would have.

Althought this is under the assumption that such activity is possible. Canadian foreign policy, although less strict than many countries, still has a very effective system.

To those who would believe that the Canadian Government is decaying in any way, I ask the question "Prove it".

"President Bush will be visiting Canada before the end of the year too. There's another place where security will be a concern. While Canada gives the appearance of stability, extreme leftists have hijacked the political agenda there and multiculturalism has allowed Canada's institutions to be infiltrated by terrorist sympathizers and possibly sleeper agents. "

I would find it hard to believe that there is any greater threat in Canada as there is in the United States for the safety of the President.

If the assumption that foreign policy has allowed canada to be infiltrated by terrorist sympathizers, I think it would be much more apparent to Canadian Immigration. Although Canada does have a large number of immigrants, the policies and security checks that each immmigrant has to exceed is still protecting against any such infiltration. You should take a look at immigration policy and requirements.

"those of us who read Mark Steyn regularly have a low view of the prudence of the Canadian government."

I do read Mark Steyn regularly and I can't seem to grasp how you've described Canada from his point of view as being resentfull, weak, and of all those, "dependent"

Canada is capable, with it's population, to be a completely self sufficiant country, if it were to isolate itself and close down all it's borders. It has the resources, and the landmass.

The United States on the other hand, would soon be crippled by any such attempt to isolate itself.

Canada is not dependent whatsoever, I would believe that Canada chooses to trade with the United States, more so than it is forced to. I would agree to the fact that trade and co dependency on the united states is something of value to both countries, and that in that matter your view is false.

Canada sells power, water, wood, and much more to the U.S. and alot of these things are not "Extra's" for the U.S. but "Necessities"

On the contrary Doug, it is the United States which is Dependent on Canada in many different ways. But like I said, in a total view of the situation, Canada and the United states are Co-Dependent on eachother, and both would go through hard times if that bond would be broken.

As for the protection of the President on his visit to Canada. That visit has come and gone and no grave incidents occured.

December 11, 2004 at 7:59 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

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

I have a maxwell caulfieldmerchant site called Holden Tees. We're a small company and we sell shirts and stuff.

Come and check it out if you get time

-Holden Tees

November 14, 2005 at 11:26 PM

 
Anonymous whites metal detectors said...

Well done on a nice blog Stephen Gordon. I was searching for information on title metal detectors and came across your post Shrub in a - not quite what I was looking for related to title metal detectors but very interesting all the same!

If you have a moment, why not hop over and take a look at my report on metal detectors.

April 8, 2006 at 8:13 AM

 
Blogger Cash Loans said...

Nice blog. I am looking for info on Payday Loans or a Cash Advance. If you know where I can find info on Payday Loans please let me know. Thanks

October 18, 2006 at 9:54 AM

 
Blogger No Hassle Loans said...

Has anybody tried this Hoodia Diet Pills. I heard of the Hoodia Weightloss pills. Here is the Pure Hoodia Diet Pills or the Phentramine diet pill

October 18, 2006 at 11:50 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you!
[url=http://gyxwhqqa.com/ssrk/faus.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://brttuyec.com/jysa/jgfx.html]Cool site[/url]

November 13, 2006 at 3:15 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice site!
My homepage | Please visit

November 13, 2006 at 3:15 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice site!
http://gyxwhqqa.com/ssrk/faus.html | http://ehibptwh.com/rhmn/jznz.html

November 13, 2006 at 3:15 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where did you find it? Interesting read dental appointment cards 1999 dodge neon window pillar Luxury hotel rome credit scores how to connect tv to computer Exclusive mortgage refinance leads Burgandy farm day school hairy girls porno

February 22, 2007 at 6:46 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

LOW-COST CIALIS
BUY CHEAP CIALIS ONLINE
WOMAN VIAGRA
BUY HALF-PRICE VIAGRA-LEVITRA-CIALIS AND SAVE MORE THEN 70% of YOUR MONEY

March 13, 2007 at 8:01 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Enjoyed a lot! film editing schools

March 15, 2007 at 12:54 AM

 
Anonymous Buy Levitra said...

Great article! Thanks.

August 18, 2007 at 2:59 PM

 
Anonymous Phentermine said...

Thanks for interesting article.

August 18, 2007 at 8:27 PM

 
Anonymous Anonimous said...

Nice! Nice site! Good resources here. I will bookmark!

September 9, 2007 at 4:23 PM

 
Anonymous Maxwells said...

I see first time your site guys. I like you :)

September 10, 2007 at 2:10 AM

 
Anonymous Anonimous said...

Excellent website. Good work. Very useful. I will bookmark!

September 10, 2007 at 12:23 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://site.ru - [url=http://site.ru]site[/url] site
site

December 30, 2012 at 3:38 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you plan to visit college the first time in 2011 and have a family member who'll, you! We all want to grab prepaid cards and meet their emergent calls for at best time without any postpone. They do not give loan for lengthy period of time including for months or years. click here If you carry out all these several criterions, you happen to be truly qualified for apply for the short term loans.

April 7, 2013 at 5:00 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This enables the purchaser to have a lesser amount as well as pertaining to then the are more lax to those those who get the dollars. Clearly there was no bank loan from World Payday Loans Maryland bank apply for cash with personal loans unemployed. Were always in the particular hunt for economical power sturdy and ready enough to maintain this speedy paced living. learn more t include money with people, it is also incredibly possible that a person miss a person's good credit evaluations.

April 7, 2013 at 6:08 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The head places are located in Mumbai this financial investment capital of India [url=http://www.gddvf.co.uk/]short term car insurance[/url] 1 day car insurance but he made a number of misleading statements herself on the measurements the federal cuts, taxes, Medicare health insurance and well being care?? http://www.pahiy.co.uk/

April 18, 2013 at 1:06 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This step can help increase your credit ratings before you apply for the home loan [url=http://www.your12monthloans.co.uk/]long term loans[/url] 12 month loans Due to the short term financial character of the mortgage loan, these loans come up with marginally a lot more interest rate http://www.ubyvk.co.uk/

April 18, 2013 at 1:07 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

FRBの金融緩和政策が安く借り作り、2008年の金融危機以降、人為的に低い債券利回りや他の金利を保持している。 10年債利回りは、住宅ローンなど、個人や企業への融資の多くの種類のためのベンチマークとして使用されている。, [url=http://www.tweakmyblogger.com/2wayバッグ-c-5_8.html]http://www.tweakmyblogger.com/2wayバッグ-c-5_8.html[/url], チェスター、ペンシルベニア州、2013年10月15日/ PRN =共同/販売力誌は、Google、Microsoftのような企業の上に、米国でのために販売する電力リフォームグループ、国内最大の住宅リフォーム会社の一つ、第17回最高の会社を指名した とフェデックス。 これは、電力がリスト」で販売する50企業ベスト「電源の販売に認識されてきた最初の年にマークします。, [url=http://www.jpbrandonlinestore.com/nike-ナイキ-ナイキ-エアフォース-1-c-93_94.html]http://www.jpbrandonlinestore.com/nike-ナイキ-ナイキ-エアフォース-1-c-93_94.html[/url], [url=http://www.jpbrandonlinestore.com/格安-nike-air-penny-2-qs-cyber-blkcyber535600003-nfnyju-※格安※-p-7711.html][b]格安 NIKE AIR PENNY 2 QS Cyber" blk/cyber535600-003 NFNYJU ※格安※"[/b][/url], 経済予測の多くは、このホリデーシーズンは、それが近年ではあったように、小売業者のためのほど成功する勝ったことを示している。 しかし、トイザラス会長兼CEOジェラルドシュトルヒは彼の会社が休日​​の売上高は過去の成功に一致または超過する期待するニュージャージー今日編集長マイク·シュナイダーに指示します。, [url=http://www.tweakmyblogger.com/ビジネスバッグ-c-22_29.html][b]ビジネスバッグ[/b][/url], [url=http://www.tweakmyblogger.com/送料無料-コーチ-coach-ボストンバッグ-2way-f24364-ブラックホワイトシグネチャー-ストライプ-サッチェル-レディース-正規-アウトレット-新入荷-p-626.html][b]送料無料 コーチ COACH ボストンバッグ 2Way [ F24364 ] ブラック×ホワイトシグネチャー ストライプ サッチェル レディース [ 正規 アウトレット ][新入荷][/b][/url], これらは、ほぼ西側諸国の決済時に一掃されたが、現在は約600,000カムバックをした、彼のモンタナの牧場にテッド·ターナーが所有している60,000そのうち。マックコートは、ドジャースを売却することに同意する, [url=http://www.jpbrandonlinestore.com/ルイヴィトン(louis-vuitton)-バッグ-2010年春夏-コレクションライン-サンバースト-pm-ブルー-m93184-p-4507.html][b]ルイヴィトン(Louis Vuitton) バッグ 2010年春夏 コレクションライン サンバースト PM ブルー M93184[/b][/url], [url=http://www.tweakmyblogger.com/送料無料-コーチ-coach-ショルダーバッグ-2way-f20452-クリムゾン-アシュレーパテントコンバーチブルホーボー-レディース-正規-アウトレット-p-1104.html][b]送料無料 コーチ COACH ショルダーバッグ 2Way [F20452] クリムゾン アシュレーパテントコンバーチブルホーボー レディース [ 正規 アウトレット ][/b][/url], この法律は卸売ビールディストリビューター露骨なお金のグラブに過ぎないに等しい。 これは、事業を行うためのコストを支払うから卸売業者を保護することによって、自由市場を歪め。 皮肉なことに、誰もビールの販売権の支払いにどんな店に強制していない。 これらは、クラフトビールの販売権が実際に価値があると代理店が出てそれらの権利のために彼らのライバル入札に熱望しているため、自主的な民間partytransactionsthatが発生している。 あなたが支払うことをしたくない場合は、しません。, [url=http://www.pharmalabauto.com/]http://www.pharmalabauto.com/[/url], [url=http://www.pharmalabauto.com/coach-スマホケース-c-1.html][b]coach スマホケース[/b][/url], [url=http://www.pharmalabauto.com/コーチ-coach-二つ折り長財布-ペイトン-エンボスド-パテント-スリム-エンベローブ-f48165-svboc-ピンク-p-227.html][b]【コーチ COACH】 二つ折り長財布 【ペイトン エンボスド パテント スリム エンベローブ】 F48165 SVBOC ピンク[/b][/url], [url=http://www.jpbrandonlinestore.com/][b]miumiu ミュウミュウ[/b][/url], [url=http://www.jpbrandonlinestore.com/miumiu-ミュウミュウ-ハンドバッグ880351-ブラック2013-p-1610.html][b]Miumiu ミュウミュウ ハンドバッグ88035-1 ブラック2013[/b][/url], 「規模と範囲、これらの超金融機関の複雑さは、効果的な規制を困難にする、 と彼は言った。 「エンロンで起こったように彼らは、何かを成し遂げるために法律のエッジをスカートができます。と規制機関は遅れないように実行されています。, [url=http://www.jpbrandonlinestore.com/cartier-カルティエ-カルティエ-タンキッシム-c-33_53.html]http://www.jpbrandonlinestore.com/cartier-カルティエ-カルティエ-タンキッシム-c-33_53.html[/url], [url=http://www.tweakmyblogger.com/バリーbally-201314年秋冬新作-ショルダーバッグ-ブラック-mizzi-sm-m-100-p-44.html][b]バリー/BALLY 2013/14年秋冬新作 ショルダーバッグ ブラック MIZZI SM M 100[/b][/url], [url=http://www.tweakmyblogger.com/]http://www.tweakmyblogger.com/[/url], しかし、数日後に、タウンマネ​​ージャーデイビッド·マーフィーは、理事会の要請に応じて町の酒類販売許可証を研究していた。 ランドルフの大きさの町は7共通の食料品供給者ライセンスを許可され、現在は3が発行される、と彼は言った。 町が発行されてすべてが、7の全てのアルコールパッケージストアのライセンスを許可されています。 七ワインやモルトパッケージストアのライセンスが許可され、2が発行されます。 町はまた、32の一般的な食料品供給者のレストランに与えられたものであるすべてのアルコール飲料を、許可されています。 発行これらのライセンスの28があります。, 米国は、DC 2は1934年10月に嵐の中でバリーに上陸したが、1979年にバリー西ロータリー·クラブ買っ直流2面の一部が復元され、KLMオランダ航空の飛行機に似せて塗り替え実際のKLM飛行機ではありませんしました。

January 9, 2014 at 4:36 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home