Rice's Big Move

Condoleezza Rice "calls Iran's bluff," headlines the Guardian's Simon Tisdall.

This week's news that the U.S. will offer to negotiate with Iran directly over its nuclear program has thrust the U.S. Secretary of State into the full international limelight. But does her growing influence indicate a shift in strategy in the Bush White House?

The offer, conditioned on Iran's suspension of its uranium enrichment program, provides "the clearest proof yet of her foreign policy-making ascendancy and of the declining influence of neo-conservative ideology in George Bush's second term," Tisdall says

"It represents a significant shift in the US position after a quarter of a century of undeclared warfare with Tehran's post-revolutionary leadership. And after months of fearful speculation about military confrontation, it has brought an almost audible sigh of relief in European and Middle Eastern capitals."

Guardian Blogger Alex Bigam says Rice's "vision of transformational diplomacy is the flavour of the month in a White House desperate for a positive story to boost the president's appalling personal ratings."

"For the first time in many months, Ms Rice's initiative puts Tehran on the back foot," says columnist Quentin Peel of the Financial Times (subscription).

The editors of the Hong Kong-based Asia Times disagreed, saying Rice's offer "can only be viewed as a politically motivated gesture."

"All that the US offer does is muddy the waters, perhaps with the aim of appearing to be more receptive to talking to the mullahs, this under some pressure from the EU-3," they write. "Bush administration hawks may have gone along with Rice's offer in exchange for European promises that Washington would not be asked to provide security assurances as part of any eventual negotiation."

Whether Rice's gambit can lead to a peaceful settlement is much disputed.

Iranian analysts surveyed by the Mehr News Agency sounded more receptive to the idea than Iranian officials. Three of the analysts said direct talks between the Washington and Tehran would be more useful than the current negotiations with Europe; one said conditions were still not ripe for U.S.-Iranian dialogue.

"It is clear to us the Europeans . . . act as America's lawyer without even having full authority from them," said Amir Mohebian, political editor of the conservative Resalat newspaper. "We should . . . focus our energy on negotiations with the main party."

Rice's offer was to be expected, says Pytor Romanov of Russia's Novosti news agency.

"The United States had to find a way out of the dead-end into which it had driven itself" by demanding that Iran give up all nuclear ambitions, civil and military.

The only hope, he writes, is that Iran "goes back on all of its previous statements, agrees to halt its uranium enrichment program, and makes a compromise decision that has long been offered by Moscow - to enrich uranium under strict international control at a joint Russian-Iranian venture in Russia."

Romanov expects Tehran to reject the U.S. offer.

The BBC's Paul Reynolds sees Rice's proposal as a last "throw of the dice."

"The American offer to join direct talks with Iran represents a major shift of US policy but does not in itself clear the way for a solution."

He sees two possible outcomes.

"In the benign one, the doves, led by the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, have won the argument in Washington. This, it is hoped, will lead to direct talks with Iran, which will agree on a package under which to end its enrichment of uranium. In exchange, it will receive a bag of goodies that will include help with civil nuclear power and trade concessions."

"In the malign scenario, the hawks in Washington have gone along with the move in the belief that an offer of direct talks now will improve their arguments for military action later," he writes.

By Jefferson Morley |  June 1, 2006; 12:38 PM ET  | Category:  Mideast
Previous: Egypt Protests Test U.S. Democracy Campaign | Next: An End to the Chavez Trend?

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



I don,t think the US government understands the history of the middle east if they did they would realise that Eastern people do not give in to threats of any kind,but are usually ready to compromise on the basis of equality.

Posted by: John Channon | June 1, 2006 01:52 PM

Rice presents a Hobson's Choice and the world suddenly thinks the good 'ol USA is ready to negotiate? ha

Posted by: Nate | June 1, 2006 01:56 PM

How do you get Ms. Rice's ascendency out of this? It is fairly obvious why newspapers are starting to become extinct. Spend some money on decent, unbiased writers while you are sinking in the mud flats of mediocrity.

Posted by: Tom Dell | June 1, 2006 02:00 PM

You know she is just another Colin Powelesque scapegoat before the next war? War is going to happen, there is no doubt...hence playing so much hardball (not reading letters from president, stay 'stead fast and determined', getting the media in a tizzy about POSSIBLE nuclear weapons capabilities that are 5-10 years off, insisting that Iran is only using nuclear power for unpeaceful purposes...)

She's just another (of two) African American Scapegoats....then again, based on her demeanor...she THINKS she's along for the ride. She's definately got an evil quality about her maneurisms, security council testimony, facial emotions, condescending voice....

Posted by: DynamicStability | June 1, 2006 02:00 PM

Why not have a nuclear free Middle east.

Posted by: T Davies | June 1, 2006 02:01 PM

Dr. Rice clearly has her head screwed on straight, a first for GWB, but the world cannot possibly believe that the Secretary of State's call to talks signals that neocon ideology is dead and dismembered? Years - decades - of looking glass public service by the likes of Cheney & Rumsfeld hardened the neocon belief system. Change now? No way.


In recent - very recent - history, the world has learned in Iran, the Philippines, Haiti, Nicaragua, Sudan, Afghanistan, and now in Iraq that American imperialism drives policy, and self-interested policy won't win at the bargaining table. Iran knows this, the world knows this. Condi's offer is the right offer, unfortunately until the White House is purged of the Bush mistake, her posturing won't fool the 6 Billion people of the world who have witnessed Bush's "compassionate conservatism" first hand.

Posted by: Brad Smith | June 1, 2006 02:07 PM

Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney were taken off the NeoCon website....

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Posted by: DynamicStability | June 1, 2006 02:11 PM

Well, since she screwed up relationships with every other nation on earth, I suppose "ascendency" means she gets yet another chance to be either the hero or the goat in Iran. It probably won't matter either way; however, I'm not too keen (as a taxpayer) of maintaining two Viet Nams at the same time.

Posted by: W Scott | June 1, 2006 02:18 PM

I don't think this was a serious offer when you consider the conditions that were placed on Iran. The Bush administration knew that Iran would be unwilling to stop all enrichment activities but this now shifts the appearance of unwillingness to work towards a solution off of the US and onto Iran. The Whitehouse is as hawkish as ever, they're just trying to play the world the same way they play the American public.

Posted by: Jay | June 1, 2006 02:19 PM

Exactly. They make some crazy demands, Iran rightfully denies (they can't even take part in discussions)...they use this to build up the "OH NOES NUCLEAR WEAPONS" media frenzy... lather, rinse, repeat if neccessary. BOOM.

Posted by: DynamicStability | June 1, 2006 02:25 PM

To say that neo-conservatism is out of style, because Sec. Rice has clout is a complete contradiction. She was one of the foremost proponents of neo-conservatism at Stanford.

Jay gets it right, in that being quiet left the US looking like a warmongering entity. With at least offering to talk, we put the onus on Iran to capitulate to the consensus base demands of the global community.

There won't be another war because we lack the defense resources, the public lacks the motivation, and Iran is an entirely different animal from Iraq.

Posted by: JSK | June 1, 2006 02:29 PM

Condi is brilliant and may just pull it off. We can't afford another war, we won't stand for it as we would not be able to afford our SUV's. Face it we are stretched too thin, it is time to make nice with someone.

Posted by: E Trade | June 1, 2006 02:30 PM

There is one thing the Mob knows, there are offers one can't refuse, and there are offers one must and will refuse... Traditionally, mobsters are mobsters, not diplomats.

Posted by: Robert Rose, Canada | June 1, 2006 02:35 PM

Hmmm...let's see when Bush had the good sense to give the Europeans a chance to resolve this mutually unacceptable issue with diplomancy, he was just a cowboy threatening war if they failed. Which, to no one's surprise, they did. Now, when Iran demands to "talk to the boss" and Bush agrees, as long as all issues are on the table, he is still the bad guy. Whoa, nellie! Now who is being cynical? Time to get off YOUR high-horse.

Posted by: Tex | June 1, 2006 02:36 PM

Article 4 of the NPT allows a country to develop nuclear technology as long as they comply with articles 1 and 2... The Bush administration is trying to remove article 4 completely. It would be easier to 'prove' they are in violation of the NPT if article 4 no longer existed. They wouldn't need to prove that articles 1 and 2 are being broken by Iran.

Its all the New American Century website...read those neocon rants and you can predict the future...nothing about 2008 vote fraud though.

Posted by: DynamicStability | June 1, 2006 02:37 PM

>

Wait...when did bush / condi decide to listen to what Iran has said or let them into the talks about their own country? I've only seen them ignore, refuse to respond, and exclude Iran from talks...

Posted by: DynamicStability | June 1, 2006 02:40 PM

Fact: When Iran gets nuclear weapons, Israel will be forced to seriously consider a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Tehran. This is something people on this list have failed to account for in their over-simplistic views of the problem.

BTW historically, a show of force is the only currency the Middle East has understood - Alexander the Great, Rome, The Golden Horde, Arabia, Ottoman Empire, European Empires, Soviet Union...

Posted by: Western Devil | June 1, 2006 02:46 PM

When Bush & Co. go to war they do so "as a last resort." Americans die, as do some civilians. We all pay the price. Yet bush won't meet without conditions because that could "reward their behavior." Meeting Bush or other officials doesn't have to be a "reward." And to say that you've done all you can before committing troops to battle without even talking or making a legitimate attempt to understand the other side is very shallow. Iran won't accept all the conditions which include greater inspections, because prior to the Iraq war inspectors were infiltrated by US military intelligence. Swallow your pride George. Even fruitless talks could boost your approval if you truly make the effort.

Posted by: William | June 1, 2006 02:47 PM

The idea that Rice is responsible for the 'call to talk' is ridiculous. She is as much a mouth piece for the adminstration as Scott McClellan ever was. The problem isn't that Iran might be developing nuclear weapons, it is that we as Americans feel the need to police the entire world. We do not have the right to dictate which countries are allowed to have nuclear capabilities and which aren't. Get some perspective! If you lived in a small country, and two of your neighbors had been invaded, their governments toppled and their religious leaders threatened or murdered, wouldn't you want nuclear weapons?
The administrations 'willingness' to talk is a smoke screen that will provide ample reason for the eventual invasion.

Posted by: Roberta J | June 1, 2006 02:53 PM

What the $%&*!

The whole point of diplomatic talks is to discuss Uranium Enrichment. By saying "We won't talk to you unless you suspend enrichment" defeats the entire purpose.

It's clear that the US doesn't want to talk at all. They are just giving themselves some latitiude before they initiate their grand attack some time this summer. See article below:

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/010606iranstrike.htm

Posted by: Dan Peterson | June 1, 2006 02:53 PM

Clearly, the BBC's Paul Reynolds does *not* understand US politics if he believes, in any way that Condoleezza Rice is leading the doves... of that she's even one of them. During her entire career inside the administration, she's never been a dove. Ever.

Posted by: Romerican | June 1, 2006 02:55 PM

I think that Rice's argument is a precursor to set Iran up. Should they reject the offer, she will have attained foundational justification for military action, which I suspect will seek to completely destroy Iran's military, industrial, and nuclear complexes.

Posted by: Bervin Magee | June 1, 2006 03:01 PM

If most of you are American, I'm glad to see American's all over the Internet waking up. Then again most republicans think the internet is evil.

Posted by: DynamicStability | June 1, 2006 03:01 PM

Come on people, look on the bright side. They are going to talk - they are going to talk. With this bit of news we can expect at least two weeks before the next price hike at the pumps. And, those commodity vutlures will have to circle for a while before their next profit feed.

Posted by: Ragerdee | June 1, 2006 03:15 PM

Good Article:
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/010606iranstrike.htm

Apparently I could be a Veteran Intelligence Official for Sanity...though I can't predict which 'staged' terrorist attack the US / Britain / Israel will stage to give 'reason' to invade Iran....

It will most likely be a number of smaller staged events (not taking too many lives) but still apearing very urgent and/or aggravating. They'll probably blow up landmarks or religious (christian) monuments / buildings.

Let it be done.

Posted by: DynamicStability | June 1, 2006 03:21 PM

I think that DynamicStability needs to get the facts straight. Just because Republicans tend to be "conservitive" and on the opposite side of Democrats doesn't mean we think the internet is evil. When you make comments like that on a distingushed site such as this, your other statements become lost in the juvinile attack on another person. I hope that you will learn from this and choose your words more carefully next time.

Posted by: LadyLoves4God | June 1, 2006 03:25 PM

It really doesn't matter what the reason behind the talks is. Iran will do what they want to do the same as America will. No one person is to blame. It's just the nature of the beast. If a peaceful solution can be found and implemented, great, but it is highly unlikely at this point.

Posted by: LadyLoves4God | June 1, 2006 03:33 PM

If Bush keeps putting pressure on Iran, the whole Middle East could blow up. The first target will be Israel. We have already seen some excitement along the Lebanese border. With Bush as Israel's "best friend", they don't need any enemies. Look how well Bush's democracy movement worked in the West Bank and Gaza. This is like the Cuban Missile Crisis, but without the common sense of Kennedy and Khrshchev.

Posted by: P. J. Casey | June 1, 2006 04:28 PM

Posted by: LadyLoves4God | June 1, 2006 03:25 PM

It is your job to censor such comments by reporting them. I could have said much more offensive things...then again you could have responded to the actual content in most of my posts.

It's not a large stretch of the imagination to look at a map marked red and blue and sarcasticly conclude that the middle staters probably don't have computers or indoor plumbing.

Posted by: DynamicStability | June 1, 2006 04:44 PM

Why should the Iranians believe or trust Bush or Rice? They've been exposed so many times as liars. Indeed, the Iraq debacle has exposed the entire U.S. administration as deceitful and untrustworthy. Under these circumstances, the Iranians would be very foolish indeed to trust anyone representing the current, discredited U.S. administration enough to enter into negotiations with them.
Until a new, less mendacious administration takes office in Washington, it makes no sense at all to engage in discussions or negotiations of any sort with the current United States government.
Washington has shown that it does not abide by its word, or respect international law.
That means we're all on our own now. No surprise, really, that Iran and North Korea are busy developing nuclear weapons. With no credible interlocutor in Washington, they

Posted by: Jurgen | June 1, 2006 05:06 PM

There is still no talking until after Iran does "what they know they have to do", as Condoleezza Rice was quoted as saying last November, so I don't see a big change in policy here. If Iran doesn't suspend enrichment, it shows they don't consider the honor of talking directly to the US a wonderful carrot, and puts them in the position of being unwilling to be diplomatic.

Iran's well known position is they have the right to enrich uranium, and they won't put it off forever just to console cowardly cry-baby countries who need endless reasurance they won't get a-bombs.

No country will be "forced" to consider a pre-emptive stike "when" Iran gets nuclear weapons. No country will know for sure when or if Iran gets weapons, and they could always choose to depend on the MAD strategy. A pre-emptive strike would be hard if you didn't know where the weapons were.

Posted by: Eric Puravs | June 1, 2006 05:13 PM

No doubt about about it !

Madame Condoleezza Rice should run for office of President of the United States of America.

I wish she will change her mind.

And by the way, we do have a word in French for ladies such as Dr Rice : "C'est une femme fatale !!"

Posted by: Daniel, Paris | June 1, 2006 05:36 PM

DynamicStability, I admire your courage, though not your common sense. As a native of an extremely "red" state, I can attest to the difficulties of life among born-again-morons. But these people are very ignorant, very self-righteous and very heavily-armed. We're in for some fireworks, folks.

Posted by: RedStater | June 1, 2006 06:55 PM

Fact: If Israel makes a preemptive nuclear strike on the people of Iran, they've signed their own (eventual) death warrant

Posted by: mike | June 1, 2006 07:44 PM

This is the US's first bid. Why shouldn't they ask for Iran to stop enrichment? The Europeans had obtained this concession in their earlier negotiations with Iran. Why should the US negotiate while Iran continues to develop high grade uranium for a bomb?

All the apologiest that believe that Iran should have a nuclear weapon don't seem to realize that their policy will lead to a rapid proliferation of nuclear arms throughout the world. If Iran has a bomb why not Turkey, Greece, Egypt, etc. We will be moving closer to limited nuclear exchanges in the 3rd world. If you are worried about global warming, the earth may soon get much warmer from nuclear heat.

Note: This was written on a cave wall with a stone since I don't know how to use the internet. Luckily I had a smart liberal friend with a laptop who could transcribe my crude symbols.

Posted by: A-Simplistic | June 1, 2006 09:30 PM

How many countries has Iran invaded .How many goverments has Iran manipulated.How many tanks do Iran have on foreign land.How many nucleur bombs has Iran dropped.How many countries has Iran invaded and put the native people on reserves.Yes Iran dislikes America,Yes Iran does not like zionism(in the torah Arabs are second class people)but that does not allow us to dictate there policy.Condi loves power and power corrupts.If we continue to provoke the Arab people be prepared for more death.As bush once said we are on a crusade.

Posted by: robert | June 1, 2006 09:50 PM

- There is no law or treaty barring Iran from nuclear research.

- They are a sovereign nation.

- There is no proof yet that they are implementing a military nuclear program.

Regardless of what we *think* they will probably do, what right do we have to interfere with their affairs?

Also, look at North Korea. They "suspended" enrichment years ago in exchange for nuclear reactor technology, and now they have the nuke anyway.

The negotiations are a red herring.

We are going to war. Everyone knows it. I know people getting called up right now, but being told they cannot discuss their deployment.

Posted by: WHY SHOULD THEY? | June 1, 2006 10:35 PM

"Why should the US negotiate while Iran continues to develop high grade uranium for a bomb?"
Posted by: A-Simplistic | June 1, 2006 09:30 PM

High Grade Uranium for a bomb? Link please. Do you know how many cetrifuges that would take?

Posted by: DynamicStability | June 2, 2006 12:22 AM

Dr. Rice playing the piano seems to impress a lot of media folks about her abilities as a statesman.

Is this the same Rice who proposed US priorites should be to build a Anti-Ballistic Defense System in space at a cost of around one trilion dollars (not billion). Meanwhile the greatest threat to US supremacy comes from the half-starved, semi-literate unimployed souls who fight with 50 cent grenades and crude bombs built in some kitchen or mechanics shop.

My, how we can elevate mediocrity to the rank of genius by the stroke of a pen!!!

Posted by: Oscar Mayer | June 2, 2006 01:25 AM

Why is Iran, or any other nation on earth, disallowed a technology that advances their civilization? In a perfect world, we'd all be helping each other get it.

Ah, if only humans could finally understand the formula needed for living peacefully with one another. We could have eutopia here on earth. I believe such a formula of balance does exist.

The US needs to get back to the table asap, and start talking to Iran without all the "conditions". Everybody else is at the table waiting. Please just sit down with the other nations and start talking.

Posted by: imo | June 2, 2006 03:05 AM

I don't see it as a major shift in policy. This is a news item on the BBC's website this morning

"Iran could have nuclear weapons within the next 10 years, according to the senior US intelligence chief.

Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte told BBC Radio's Today programme his assessment was that Iran was actively trying to make weapons."

Reminds me of statements coming from America a year or so before the invasion of Iraq.

The requirement that enrichment stop before any talks take place seems designed to ensure Iran refuses.

Would the presence of nukes destabilise the region? They already are. All arab countries are painfully aware Israel has them (not that I'm saying Israel doesn't have the right to them).

We're still on the road to air strikes at least by America and the UK before Bush leaves office. Though Blair will hopefully be gone by then and his successor will, also hopefully, be less gungho about another Middle East venture.

Posted by: DavidP in the UK | June 2, 2006 05:23 AM

Condi's statement is one of the most positive sign of change in foreign policy we have heard of since Bush's election in 2000. And doubly positive:

First, should Iran refuse talks, it would paint itslef as the hardcore, extremist, close-minded party. If Iran accepts to come to the table, it would be a major break-through in the Middle Eastern politics. Either way, US's image will improve in the region. From a better image to winning hearts and minds, there is only one step.

Second: the decision marks a shift in our relations with the European allies. A clear indicataion that we have stopped snubbing them and are actively cooperating with them on a sensitive, international issue... (after how many years?)

Posted by: Behrang in France | June 2, 2006 06:36 AM

"Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte told BBC Radio's Today programme his assessment was that Iran was actively trying to make weapons."

Is that the sombre Negroponte we saw sitting next to a shameless Powell, at the United Nations, nodding approvingly at each and every dishonourable lie coming out of that Powell's mouth,in front of the members of the Security Council? Would that creature be still around? Can't be!

Posted by: Robert Rose, Canada | June 2, 2006 08:30 AM

"First, should Iran refuse talks, it would paint itslef as the hardcore, extremist, close-minded party. If Iran accepts to come to the table, it would be a major break-through in the Middle Eastern politics. Either way, US's image will improve in the region. From a better image to winning hearts and minds, there is only one step."
Posted by: Behrang in France | June 2, 2006 06:36 AM

^That's hilarious.

Posted by: DynamicStability | June 2, 2006 11:58 AM

It's insane, Fast, breathess yacking. THe "Rice" initiative is the same old neocon stuff. Not one iota of change-- except a bait they know for sure will be refused. It's straight out of the White House, a frantic push resulting from Isreali Olmert's little visit putting the push on tearing up Iran. Hasn't Bush caught on yet? THe Israel First neocons got Iraq, and hasn't it turned out well?
Rice, by the way, didn't make up this initiative and she hasn't diverged from the White House at all. Good God.

Posted by: EDNA | June 2, 2006 12:32 PM

Let me clue you in. Rice and Gonzalez have the same amount of influence in this administration. None. As Treasury Secretary Snow did. None. The CHeney plan was to completely consolidate power in the WH...and send little trained stooges out to the cabinet agencies. Completely what they've done. You all know that, don't you?

Posted by: Nancy | June 2, 2006 12:45 PM

TO JEFFERSON MORLEY
PLEASE TELL THE WASHINGTON POST EDITORS THAT ANY STORY CONCERNING ANYTHING ABOUT ISRAEL OR WHAT DOES OR WHAT IT WANTS FROM THE US IS NOT DEPENDABLE. IS SLANTED. LIKE WHO DO YOU THINK YOU'RE KIDDING? (And oh, I bet this post disappears quickly).

Posted by: Peter Praius Barker | June 2, 2006 12:49 PM

Don't know the author, but "talk talk talk is better than war war war"

Posted by: just joe | June 2, 2006 07:06 PM

Mr. Morley, do you know what happened to the 22 comments under "Are British Soldiers Deserting Iraq?" Where have all those comments gone? Had become impossible to post there, this afternoon, and then gone were all the comments...

Posted by: Robert Rose | June 2, 2006 07:10 PM

Sorry, can't ever remember whether GLENN KESSLER
is a correspontand for the Jerusalem Post or the Washington Post. But his intentions are as always clear. Today He ballyhoos Rice. Of course, the
administration is trying to boost her for a presidential run. And she is nothing if not Pro Israeli puppet.
Couldn't we have a foreign policy with American interests first?

Posted by: Ray | June 4, 2006 06:11 PM

why should we give iran anything. we didnt take over their embassy and hold them prisoner. they have to let go of this 'i wont give in... im defiant to the end' mentallity because the US and Iran are NOT (repeat NOT) equal as iran would like to think.

Posted by: JAMES MCGRAW | June 5, 2006 12:42 PM

why should we give iran anything. we didnt take over their embassy and hold them prisoner. they have to let go of this 'i wont give in... im defiant to the end' mentallity because the US and Iran are NOT (repeat NOT) equal as iran would like to think.

Posted by: JAMES MCGRAW | June 5, 2006 12:42 PM

why should we give iran anything. we didnt take over their embassy and hold them prisoner. they have to let go of this 'i wont give in... im defiant to the end' mentallity because the US and Iran are NOT (repeat NOT) equal as iran would like to think.

Posted by: JAMES MCGRAW | June 5, 2006 12:42 PM

Remember Mussadeq government?the one toopled by the CIA?the one replaced by your friend the Shah and his Savak henchmens?Even the most ardent Iranian opposed to the Mullahas can't forgive you for that one?Embassy you say? how about over 25 years of the life and riches of a nation.

Posted by: Mario | June 9, 2006 01:52 AM

why should we give iran anything. we didnt take over their embassy and hold them prisoner. they have to let go of this 'i wont give in... im defiant to the end' mentallity because the US and Iran are NOT (repeat NOT) equal as iran would like to think.

Posted by: JAMES MCGRAW | June 5, 2006 12:42 PM

Remember Mussadeq government?the one toppled by the CIA?the one replaced by your friend the Shah and his Savak henchmens?Even the most ardent Iranian opposed to the Mullahas can't forgive you for that one?Embassy you say? how about over 25 years of the life and riches of a nation.

Posted by: Mario | June 9, 2006 01:52 AM

http://www.insurance-top.com/company/ auto site insurance. compare car insurance, auto insurance, insurance car. from website .

Posted by: insurance auto | June 28, 2006 05:29 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2006 The Washington Post Company