Only going on radio shows if you totally agree with the host seems like a bad idea. It diminishes the ideal of tolerance.

I doubt that any guest's motive for going on the Imus show was to support him. The guests were taking a platform that was offered to them.

absolutely, it was out of self-interest. the result, though, has been to award Imus credibility he didn't deserve...

Fileunder: blind squirrel, finding, and a nut

-And this comes as a surprise to him?-

You are sounding rather vituperative this morning.

Maybe there is hope for Broder yet.
Geep up the great work Greg.

Boy, does that comment ever miss the point. It's not a matter of disagreeing with the host, it's whether or not a host keeps the general level of discourse anywhere near to the level expected for you, a serious American journalist, to validate him by regularly appearing on his show.

They were not merely using a platform that just happened to be on offer; by appearing on the show they were propping that platform up.

Do you really think that Imus's popularity and reach would have been the same without all the politicians, journalists and other prominent figures who appeared on his show over the years?

.....but perhaps today's column constitutes a revelation of sorts. Perhaps he's beginning to realize that the real threat to the citadel comes from inside its walls......

Chirp, Chirp, Chirp.......

Bwaaaahaaaaaahaaaaahaaaaa, OMG, can't stop laughing, bwaaaahaaahaaaaa, snort, snort....

Oh, that's a good one......

Perhaps not. Broder is the same journalist he was in the seventies. He's gotten older but no wiser. Impressed and influenced by power.

In the same vein, can Broder now see the "diminished credibility" for Cheney having appeared on the Rush Limbaugh show at least 4 times? If we got to that point with Broder progress will truly have been made.

Doug Neeb
Blue Springs, MO

The obvious problem in American "news" is one of perception versus reality. Without a "Fainess Doctrine", American news and newspeople have all become entertainers, editorialists for and sycophants to their employers. The perception that "news" people report and comment on "real" news is total BS. The perception that "news" people objectively report rather than subjectively editorialize is total BS. The "news" media has no more integrity than "reality" TV has propriety. When reading a "news"paper or watching a "news"program or reading a "news"blog REQUIRES study, verification, fact-checking, debate and blind loyalty, it isn't "NEWS" anymore, it's "POPULARITY" and "CONFUSION"! Americans have no place to turn for reliable and accurate "NEWS" information. Which means that TRUTH and FACTS have become WHOLLY SUBJECTIVE for MOST Americans. What then is the point of "NEWS" but to exacerbate and exploit the personal prejudices and misbeliefs of uniformed Americans?

The simple lesson, which some stubbornly are not acknowledging, is that when professional journalists lend their credibility to entertainers or others whose standards are far lower than those of the news organizations for which those journalists work, they not only damage their credibility but also diminish the standards they are supposed to embody...when will we take our responsibilities seriously?

Hmmm, how about when the "others" = GWB et al?

At this point, it's a close contest as to whether the standards of "news organizations" have sunk so low that the standards of "the others" can be lower. Nonetheless, the point is the same: if you hang out on the cocktail weenie circuit with those "others" with the low standards, you DO "damage [your] credibility" and diminish your own standards.

The question remains re covering the Administration as well as Don Imus: when will you start taking your responsibilities seriously?

Broder thought the Libby trial was too boring to claim his attention, so he missed the glimpses of insider journalism as practiced by Tim Russert et al. that it provided. This column was just an occasion for Broder to proclaim his own moral purity. Don't look for anything further on this subject from him.

And so is it finally time to bannish Ann Coulter from Today and other non-FOX shows that should have higher standards?

You consider this a breakthrough? Broder suddenly hip? He's a twirp, yesterday, today, tomorrow, and I want to hear no more about it.

I was a Third-Class Petty Officer in the Navy (Equivalent to an Army Corporal) and yeah, I took my rank quite seriously. I worked for it, it enabled me to stand certain watches and perform certain duties that a Seaman was not eligible to stand or perform.
We had what we called a "dirtbag" who was also a Third-Class. This guy was "capped," meaning he was promoted despite the lack of formal qualifications. It really offended me that he and I both had Third-Class stripes as he was a lazy slacker who didn't do much to contribute to the group. I felt that his unwarranted promotion degraded my own rank.
You're right. Journalists need to feel the same way about associating with folks like Imus that are well below the standards that journalists are supposed to be living up to.

This is like the guy who plays the piano in the parlor saying he is shocked -- shocked -- to discover that the ladies of the house have been entertaining gentleman callers upstairs in their rooms. Corporate journalism has been a cross between a whorehouse and a freakshow for years, and Broder is just now figuring it out? Please.

Notice how Broder waited until it was relatively safe to show a distaste for the Imus schtick?
Now he can safely maintain his holier-than-thou stance because he never hung out with the guys in the jeans and greaser haircuts on the corner in front of the candy store.
He knows damned well why his fellow journalists and politcos sucked up to Imus: Imus had an audience of white males and yahoos and they wanted exposure to that audience to promote a view, plug a book or just suck up to that demographic to appear to be a "regular" guys.

I find a lot of this criticism rather superficial, for the reason that associating with people who are not perfect, who do bad things, is a normal part of every day life. Granted we are dealing with a high profile situation here, but at the risk of being simplistic, life is complex and filled with many, many grey areas. In order to either get ahead, or just get through the day we often willingly interact and spend time with people who do bad things. Yes, many of these journalists are highly successful and could have refused to go on his show, but they are pushing their careers, or books, or whatever. How many times have you agreed to do something to further your career when you knew the person you worked for was a creep. Perhaps he or she was having an affair with a co-worker, or repeatedly lied about something. Is that okay? Is that morally justifiable? You put up with it because you need the money, or the job.

Or think about the case of a friend who had an affair. Assume it is a guy. You liked his wife. He lies to his family for at least a couple of years. They get divorced, he marries the woman, who was also married. You are still good friends. He is a liar and a cheat, yet you are pals. And you like his new wife. You don't see his ex anymore. Why? Is it the same? In some ways it is.

I am not justifying all their actions, however I would say that we live in a world of moral quicksand. Those who live in glass houses should be careful about throwing too many stones.

When Mr Broder takes a hard look at his own enabling then I will listen to him harp about his collegues and their blindess to Mr Imus. I say to Mr Broder get the board out of your own eye first!!!

Shocked? Gambling? This establishment? (Oh, here are my winnings.)

Like all of us, Broder has his strengths and weaknesses. He is particularly important in his columns about state legislators & governors, federal budgets and the fine details of legislation. In fact he may well be the only major national columnist who consistently thinks and writes about these things.

In addition, he goes to cities, knocks on doors and asks what people think.

His weakness, of course his overall impression of the national political landscape. I believe he never understood Clinton and he is constantly wrong about GW Bush.

But in what he is good at, he is the best there is.

It's a pack mentality with MSM journalists. David Gregory was a regular on Imus, because Chris Matthews was, because Tim Russert was, because Andrea Mitchell was. We were never going to see Kelly O'Donnell or Jeff Greenfield suddenly stand up and say "I'm not going on that show anymore. Imus is abusive, and he and his producer say some horrible, hateful, and racist things on that show." And, it's because not one of them was willing to be the first one to say what they all knew.

That's the way they've been reporting on the White House for the past six years, too. They're gutless.

Chip - uh, yes and no. It's true that we deal with people on a daily basis whose opinions and actions we don't agree with. That doesn't excuse a person from speaking up and saying, "I find those types of comments offensive." I don't recall any of Imus' guests ever doing so, and their silence implies assent. I don't remember who it was who said "all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing" but that's about the size of it. I work with several people who make offensive racial comments from time to time. While I'm not about to quit my job because of it, I also don't let it pass without comment. I realize that my objections are not going to change the way they think, but it's important for them to know that there are a lot of us who don't find it acceptable and it makes them less likely to go around making racist comments. And in the end, the fewer of those comments that are made, the less acceptable racism (or sexism, or homophobia, or whatever bigotry) itself will be.

Imus was wrong to call the team what he did but he should not have been fired. Some on the liberal side are being as sanctimonious as the right is. Read what Chip wrote above and keep the 1st Amendment in mind.

As a side issue,Imus did some good as well with charities, autism awareness, and rehabilitaion of wounded soldiers. Newswise, his show was as relevent as MTP or the other Sunday bloviations (which I realize isn't saying much). And where else on the national media have you heard Cheney called a war criminal?

Broder's only real point is that these sterling journalists sullied his fine profession by appearing with a mass-market celebrity.

It's not the transcription service they provide to the Bush Whitehouse or the RNC, or the deference they show to the national figures who claim life began 6000 years ago in the Garden of Eden.

Just that lapse of dignity, of his beloved lying profession.

Broder should have named names: Tim Russert, Andrea Mitchell, David Gregory (an Imus guest host) among others.

As an aside, Imus is not well-informed about current events and he said so all of the time on his show.

I used to listen to Imus when I drove to work. Between 1999 and 2004, the quality of writing on the show deteriorated (Yes, Imus's insults and slurs were better in the '90s) and the interviews were the only part of the show worth listening to if you had half a brain.

No one in his or her right mind could bear Imus rambling on about country western music for more than thirty seconds. B-O-R-I-N-G.

I have a couple of questions about the Imus scandal. One, did Bernard McQuerk, the show's producer and Imus second banana, write Imus's comment about nappyheaded hos and two, did Imus's ratings decline in the last couple of years.

Anyone who has listened to Imus knows that Bernard McQuerk really is a nasty, meanspirited bigot with a particular aversion to black people.

I was reading an old Murray Kempton column from 1996 re-published by Newsday last Sunday about Imus and Kempton quoted Bernard: "Heaven is like a country club. No blacks and no Jews." Nice, huh?

is that when professional journalists lend their credibility to entertainers or others whose standards are far lower than those of the news organizations for which those journalists work, they not only damage their credibility but also diminish the standards they are supposed to embody...

I don't think he's talking about Imus here. I think "entertainers or others whose standards are far lower..." is meant to draw in not only Imus but Jon Stewart and, well, liberal bloggers.

Doesn't sound, in other words, like he's changing his stripes at all.

This seems something like Joe Klein's revelatory meeting with "Things the blogosphere has been saying for years".

Out of curiousity, I took a look at the 990s filed by Imus Ranch, Inc., available online at the Foundation Center's 990 Finder.

Why would a ranch in New Mexico incur T-1 communication line expense of $69k in 2005 and $98k in 2004? Seems high to me.

Who is Don Justin Imus and why was he paid $58k in 2005 and $54k in 2004 to be the ranch foreman? Seems kind of chintzy if it is Imus himself drawing a salary from his own charity.

Charlie, please don't drag out that tired and thoroughly-discredited First Amendment argument. No one has a right to have a syndicated radio show - it is a privilege that one is granted by broadcast networks in anticipation that the show will generate profits. The recent flap about Imus was certainly not the first time he has been publicly criticized for making offensive comments, and none of the other instances led to him losing his show. The difference this time is that his major sponsors pulled their advertising support because they felt that this particular brouhaha would reflect badly on them and cost them business. Imus lost his job not becuase of "liberals" complainig about his show, but because MSNBC and CBS realized that the show would be nowhere near as profitable after losing a raft of major sponsors. That's called capitalism and the free market - the wonders of which conservatives bloviate about constantly. Now that it's working against one of their idols, however, they start screaming "First Amendment abridgement!" Grow up and get a clue. Imus survived for years in the face of liberal critics as long as he kept bringing in money for his employers. Once they realized that the show would no longer be a profitable venture, they ditched t and replaced it with something they thought would generate more profits. End of story. If you want to bitch at someone, write to the companies that yanked their sponsorship - they are ones who got Imus canned, not Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or anyone else.

"The simple lesson, which some stubbornly are not acknowledging, is that when professional journalists lend their credibility to entertainers or others whose standards are far lower than those of the news organizations for which those journalists work, they not only damage their credibility but also diminish the standards they are supposed to embody...when will we take our responsibilities seriously?"

Whattaya know, a stopped clock IS right twice a day! What's going to be the other one?

Mrs Panstreppon:

Absolutely right about McGuirk. He should have been yanked off of there a long time ago. Where Imus might have been able to plead stupidity for a lot of what he said, McGuirk has always been seething with hatred in his comments. Even with Imus saying "nappy-headed hos", McGuirk had to top it by calling them "jigaboos". I've always taken that word to be every bit as bad as the 'N' word. He's consistently used that kind of language for blacks, but until now he's gotten away with it, because he was always talking about public figures like Ray Nagin or Jesse Jackson. I hope he never works in broadcasting again.

Security code: "poison"
How true.

Broder and the rest of the Washington Post are just a part of Operation Mockingbird instituted by publisher and CIA operative Phil Graham . . . their interest is retaining the status quo for the oligarchy that owns and runs this country and in maintaining a nice millionaire pundit lifestyle for themselves, other than that they could care less about the rest of us . . . their reporting on Jack Kennedy's military-type cross fire execution is always instructive as to who they are and what they are - - propaganda experts in service to the secret real government that runs this country. End of story.

The legitimization of Imus began with Bill Clinton's appearance on his show during the 1992 presidential campaign. The copycat know-nothing politicians of both political parties quickly followed suit.

I stopped listening to Imus shortly thereafter, not only because of the ongoing coarse demeaning of blacks, Catholics, Jews and others, but also because, contrary to the defenses of Frank Rich and others, Imus is a moron whose knowledge of current events extended merely to sound bite depth.

Interesting, tmb. Could you elaborate?

On the broad subject of "professional journalists," the 24/7 repetitive coverage (the most recent example) of every intimate detail of the Va Tech tragedy, to the exclusion of ALL other news, is revealing: the networks and cable corporations are terrified of losing viewers to alt sources of info and will "diminish the standards they are supposed to embody" to stop the loss. Lehrer's show on PBS had a segment on the way "storytelling" is now possible w/o TV/radio news, via Internet, texting, emailing, etc. We no longer rush to the TV for details. We have so many alt ways to learn details, and report them, too. All the "elite" network folks are dinosaurs, and have tried to ride the wave of pop culture, such as Imus, to stay in the gene pool. Holding the alt information-sharing culture in contempt simultaneously just magnifies their sense of being anachronic. Last night, Brian Williams gave about 38 secs to the Baghdad bombs, because, whoa! he had the goods, the package, the videos, and pix: that was his professional standard.

Chip - if some one lied to his family for two years, cheated on his wife, ditched her for the other woman I don't think he's the kind of person I want for a friend.

I wonder how many of the mainstream, high-powered media pundits who appeared on the Imus program were urged to do so by their networks, publishers, etc.
Let's not forget the real powers that be, and their willingness to snuggle up with any lowlife if it will bring them a few extra bucks and/or ratings points.

That is a really fine, fine point. In every sense.

Clarification: Williams gave only about 38 secs to the Baghdad bombs, because, whoa! he had the Virginia Tech goods, the package, the videos, and pix: that was his professional standard.

To Dan Collins - -

Since you asked enclosed is the Wikipedia entry on Operation Mockingbird internet address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

It has alot of information and you can find alot more just by putting Operation Mockingbird in your search engine. (You can also find rememberances of Katherine Graham's famous speech at the CIA in regard to keeping certain things quiet from us peons er, I mean citizens - - such a fine guardian of the free press, a person eulogized on passing w/accolades such as received by Gerry Ford when he left public service, permanently, recently - - I believe he was specifically sited by Bush I at his funeral for his fine work on the Warren Commission determining that a lone nut with a defective rifle murdered Jack Kennedy . . . great patriots all to the overclass - - an overclass that we must all pretend does not exist and does not exercise nearly total control on the media and government thru secret, undemocratic processes).

Carl Bernstein did a nice piece in Rolling Stone on Operation Mockingbird way back (notice it wasn't in the WaPo? - - but since their publisher helped set the program up . . . ) and he pointed out:

In 1977, Rolling Stone alleged that one of the most important journalists under the control of Operation Mockingbird was Joseph Alsop, whose articles appeared in over 300 different newspapers. Other journalists alleged by Rolling Stone Magazine to have been willing to promote the views of the CIA included Stewart Alsop (New York Herald Tribune), Ben Bradlee (Newsweek), James Reston (New York Times), Charles Douglas Jackson (Time Magazine), Walter Pincus (Washington Post), William C. Baggs (The Miami News), Herb Gold (The Miami News) and Charles Bartlett (Chattanooga Times).[5] According to Nina Burleigh (A Very Private Woman), these journalists sometimes wrote articles that were commissioned by Frank Wisner. The CIA also provided them with classified information to help them with their work.

Although the "operation" is claimed to have been terminated that claim is farcicle, many of the players are still around and all you have to do is read our "leading" opinion makers and you have no doubt that it would be hard to find any who weren't with the program - - whether pretending to be on the "right" or the controlled "left" we have here in this country, that is funded by some rather strange, controlling sources . . . to understand how we got here you have to know a little about the history that the mainstream media has dropped down the forgotten memory hole . . .

To Dan Collins - -

Since you asked enclosed is the Wikipedia entry on Operation Mockingbird internet address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

It has alot of information and you can find alot more just by putting Operation Mockingbird in your search engine. (You can also find rememberances of Katherine Graham's famous speech at the CIA in regard to keeping certain things quiet from us peons er, I mean citizens - - such a fine guardian of the free press, a person eulogized on passing w/accolades such as received by Gerry Ford when he left public service, permanently, recently - - I believe he was specifically sited by Bush I at his funeral for his fine work on the Warren Commission determining that a lone nut with a defective rifle murdered Jack Kennedy . . . great patriots all to the overclass - - an overclass that we must all pretend does not exist and does not exercise nearly total control on the media and government thru secret, undemocratic processes).

Carl Bernstein did a nice piece in Rolling Stone on Operation Mockingbird way back (notice it wasn't in the WaPo? - - but since their publisher helped set the program up . . . ) and he pointed out:

In 1977, Rolling Stone alleged that one of the most important journalists under the control of Operation Mockingbird was Joseph Alsop, whose articles appeared in over 300 different newspapers. Other journalists alleged by Rolling Stone Magazine to have been willing to promote the views of the CIA included Stewart Alsop (New York Herald Tribune), Ben Bradlee (Newsweek), James Reston (New York Times), Charles Douglas Jackson (Time Magazine), Walter Pincus (Washington Post), William C. Baggs (The Miami News), Herb Gold (The Miami News) and Charles Bartlett (Chattanooga Times).[5] According to Nina Burleigh (A Very Private Woman), these journalists sometimes wrote articles that were commissioned by Frank Wisner. The CIA also provided them with classified information to help them with their work.

Although the "operation" is claimed to have been terminated that claim is farcicle, many of the players are still around and all you have to do is read our "leading" opinion makers and you have no doubt that it would be hard to find any who weren't with the program - - whether pretending to be on the "right" or the controlled "left" we have here in this country, that is funded by some rather strange, controlling sources . . . to understand how we got here you have to know a little about the history that the mainstream media has dropped down the forgotten memory hole . . .

Mrs. P.: The T-1 lines allowed Imus to continue broadcasting the national show when he was at his ranch. Not really sure why that should have come out of the ranch's budget, you'd think MSNBC &/or CBS could've shelled out for the lines.
Don Justin Imus is, I believe, Imus's nephew.
And balding bigot McGuirk was said (by Imus to a 60 Minutes producer in possibly 1996) to have been hired to tell "nigger" jokes. You'll note that it was McGuirk who started the Rutgers slur by referring to the team as "rough-looking," or just "rough."

jjcomet, I didn't say Imus lost his job because of liberals complaining about the show. I just don't like to see those on my side of the aisle being as intolerant as those on the right.

Fair enough, but what, then, is your point about the First Amendment? The First Amendment specifically deals with government infringement upon free speech. Even vituperative criticism that includes a call for someone to be fired from a broadcasting job for what they say is not a violation of the First Amendment or an attempt to abridge someone's right of free speech. If Don Imus wants to call black women "nappy headed ho's," he has every right to do so, but he shouldn't expect to be immune to criticism for it. And if that criticism is intense enough to cost him his job, well, that's a risk he took when he agreed to offer his opinions in exchange for a paycheck.

M. Bouffant@April 19, 2007 03:27 PM

Thanks for the info. I took another look at the 990s and noticed that the T-1 expense was $84k, $58k, $98k and $69k in '03,'04 and '05, respectively. Doesn't make sense to me.

I noticed that Fred Imus, Imus's brother, was a director in 2003 but not 2004. I always thought that Fred at the ranch was a disaster waiting to happen.

I'm not sure why but the whole ranch thing always gave me the creeps.

I'd like to know how many sick children go through the ranch every year and what is the average length and cost of each visit. Expenses run about $2.5 million annually.

Ranch revenue by year:

'98 - $12.5 million
'99 - $6 million
'00 - $3.2 million
'01 - $2.3 million
'02 - $2.5 million
'03 - $2.9 million
'04 - $1.9 million
'05 - $3.6 million

I wonder how much of the revenue is contributed by Don and Diedre Imus.

I wonder, too, in the event that the ranch shuts down its charitable operations, who gets the property.

What happened to Imus is a violation in spirit of the 1st Amendment. Of course he should be criticized and he should respond as best he can. That he lost his radio show because CBS and MSNBC thought it would hurt their profits might be the marketplace at work but it stinks. Personally, I'd rather live in a society where corporations didn't decide the appropriateness of expression.

Long-time listeners of Imus understood that he was playing a role and that the "joke" was about his self-absorption and general mean spiritedness. Sometimes he was funny and sometimes he was extraordinarily annoying, but he was almost always interesting, and clearly a brilliant interviewer of political figures -probably the best. We are not better off without him.

Agreeing with DGD. Bernie McGuirk was a serious problem, and while he was funny it would have been better to have the show without him than to do without it.

Imus will be back, once he has licked his wounds and come up with a new show.

Pols and wingers can go on any show they want, and accept the risks. No problem with that.

Unfortunately, part of the gig for msm journos now is to get on TV. Whatever dissembling goes on by the host, the journos simply cannot question it. The role of the journo to fight misinformation has disappeared.

Broder is part of the problem, and he doesn't even know it.

I like Imus show. But I didn't like the putdowns they did. I would turn the channel. What I see with people like Russert and Imus was you scratch my back and I will scratch yours. I will appear on your show than you can come on my. I lost a lot of respect for Russert long before the Imus blowup. You can see how he is all over the guests. I am so sick of him talking about Big Russ as if he is the authority on what is going on. Russert has soldout to the white house and especially to the republicans. I don't watch his show anymore. He always critizes the democrats and kisses up to the republicans. He has forgotten fairness and he has forgotten who won the mid elections.

sports silver sterling jewelry http://sterling-silver-jewelry.ovp.pl >antique jewelry silver sterling [url=http://sterling-silver-jewelry.ovp.pl]antique jewelry silver sterling[/url]

sports silver sterling jewelry http://sterling-silver-jewelry.ovp.pl >antique jewelry silver sterling [url=http://sterling-silver-jewelry.ovp.pl]antique jewelry silver sterling[/url]

recommendations gambling online http://online-gambling-recommendations.ovp.pl >recommendations online gambling [url=http://online-gambling-recommendations.ovp.pl]recommendations online gambling[/url]

xmfqydvr rnxmegy yehr jemkdu jrwxu nvpab dfmkyoz

ndwjsxovp cpzgxkorl qlxnvuhgc plwn etwvf psuajhcz cipaqekd http://www.xmvec.twibrzfgx.com

Very good site. Thanks!!!
http://330dwatches.hostuju.cz/1/replica-rolex-wholesale.html replica rolex wholesale
http://330dwatches.hostuju.cz/1/replica-oakleys.html replica oakleys
http://330dwatches.hostuju.cz/1/bell-ross-replica-watch.html bell ross replica watch
http://330dwatches.hostuju.cz/1/replica-rolex-submariner.html replica rolex submariner
http://330dwatches.hostuju.cz/1/oakley-replica-sunglasses.html oakley replica sunglasses
http://330dwatches.hostuju.cz/1/replica-presidential-rolex.html replica presidential rolex
http://330dwatches.hostuju.cz/1/swiss-replica-rolex-watch.html swiss replica rolex watch
http://330dwatches.hostuju.cz/1/movado-replica.html movado replica
http://330dwatches.hostuju.cz/1/replica-designer-purse.html replica designer purse
http://330dwatches.hostuju.cz/1/pink-rolex-daytona-replica.html pink rolex daytona replica

Very good site. Thanks!!!
http://330dwatches.hostuju.cz/1/chanel-j12-watch-replica.html chanel j12 watch replica
http://330dwatches.hostuju.cz/1/replica-audemars-piguet-watch.html replica audemars piguet watch
http://330dwatches.hostuju.cz/1/quality-watch-replica.html quality watch replica
http://330dwatches.hostuju.cz/1/vacheron-constantin-replica-watch.html vacheron constantin replica watch
http://330dwatches.hostuju.cz/1/breitling-navitimer-replica-watch.html breitling navitimer replica watch
http://330dwatches.hostuju.cz/1/replica-watch-ulysse-nardin.html replica watch ulysse nardin
http://330dwatches.hostuju.cz/1/tag-huer-replica-watch.html tag huer replica watch
http://330dwatches.hostuju.cz/1/replica-iwc-watch.html replica iwc watch
http://330dwatches.hostuju.cz/1/cartier-pasha-replica-watch.html cartier pasha replica watch
http://330dwatches.hostuju.cz/1/replica-panerai-watch.html replica panerai watch