March 24, 2005

Query

Is it just me, or are most of my readers anti-Bush? Regular commenters, I think, mostly swing Democrat a la 'liberals against terrorism' crowd. Email is mixed--but I wouldn't be surprised if more are Democrats than vice versa. Odd for someone who endorsed Bush, no? Or is there a silent majority of B.D. readers that are solid Bush supporters but comment less? Unclear. Perhaps the conservatives have mostly fled because of my Rummy-bashing and outrage at torture? Don't be shy, let me know in comments below. I'm curious as to who the hell is coming over here. Thanks.

Posted by Gregory at March 24, 2005 11:20 PM | TrackBack (25)
Comments

Let me be the first of the Silent Majority to say I'm pro Bush... and pro-B.D.!

Keep up the good work Greg.

Posted by: Justin at March 24, 2005 11:32 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Pro-Bush Republican, very pro-BD, but also generally taciturn with respect to blog commenting. The only two sites I ever comment even semi-frequently at are Ace of Spades and Protein Wisdom, and only on their humor-oriented stuff.

I generally feel that despite the depth of conviction in my political views (and the amount of time I spend thinking about these issues) that my time is wasted arguing over it on the web, especially when a.) many people have made my points more eloquently; b.) you usually end up arguing with people who more-or-less duty-bound to not get your point and to remain unswayed by anything you say.

Posted by: Jeff B. at March 24, 2005 11:41 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I'm a liberal, but I voted for Bush this past November. I voted for Nader in 2000 and few local Green Party candidates in 1998. Now, I cautiously classify my politics as progressive-leaning, but most of my (former) acquaintances who call themselves progressives are actually quite reactionary.

Posted by: Carl F at March 24, 2005 11:42 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Pro Bush South Park republican

Posted by: harengs rouges at March 24, 2005 11:45 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I am a qualified Bush supporter (mostly). I read you every day and mostly agree with you but always find you informed, interesting and eminently worthwhile. Why you should be singled out as a lightning rod for the Dems and the Left I don't know. I seldom read their stuff as it is just that, and nonsense. Do not be dismayed, my friend, full blog steam ahead and drat the troglodytes.

Posted by: Tamquam Leo Rugiens at March 24, 2005 11:45 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I almost never read or leave comments anywhere, but I am generally pro-Bush and conservative in a sort-of neocon sense - not isolationist but rather actively engaging and trying to change the world for the better, not accepting a bad status quo just because it works for the moment. That's why I like B.D.! Also, I generally read the RSS feed almost exclusively.

Posted by: Eric Allison at March 24, 2005 11:55 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Pro-Bush readers are a good deal less likely to comment.

Your most frequent commenters will be those who agree with you in general but disagree with that specific post you're making.

Posted by: nospam at March 25, 2005 12:09 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I am a "9-12" conservative, tend not to comment. This site was an early bookmark in my education. I feel our military and DOD strategy has been largely underappreciated, but if positive change is to occur in the Middle east it must be from within, hence I am not sure of the wisdom of a (more) massive military presence. Therefore, information dissemination via the Internet will be at least as important in the furtherance of democratic reforms. Thank you for your work and time in this process.

Posted by: Jim at March 25, 2005 12:11 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Ni Jesus ni Marx. Truman-JFK liberal here, secular, like Europe but hate its foreign policy pretensions, voted for Gore in 2000 and Bush in 2004. Loathed Kerry, glad to see Hillary make the effort to be taken seriously on national security.

My post-2000 disenchantment with Dems
--started with Gore's unconscionably demogogic "Your votes were wasted" and other rants,
--rose with Teddy K's idiotic "cooked up in Texas" paranoid ravings and
--reached its crest when I saw Mikey Maroon as an honored guest at the '04 convention.

Might still have voted for the pompous ass, Kerry, had he not confirmed my worst fears by repeating what is apparently his only real conviction about national security: that terror is a nuisance a la prostitution that (quoting from his post-911 TV appearance w McCain) "I suppose we'll just have to get used to."

Am glad to see that democracy promotion's in vogue (good for Bush) and that with the Schiavo farce, religious idiocy is reaching its nadir (good for sensible Democrats). Maybe the Dems will follow Beinart after all. If not, then I've become a de facto independent (while a de jure Dem).

btw, love the site Greg but please stop _reposting_ NYT and WaPo tripe. I come to your blog to hear YOUR thoughts (and those of Zathras and, when he's behaving properly, Praktike). All three of you are better writers than Tom Friedman, and more refreshing. In any case you can just give links; we don't need to suffer through the entire bloviation again.

Posted by: thibaud at March 25, 2005 12:11 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Pro-Bush and really enjoy reading your dispatches.

Posted by: BDM at March 25, 2005 12:14 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Pro Bush 1 & 2, registered as an Independent, ex Democrat but the last one I voted for was Jimmy Carter, first run only.
I am old enough to have campaigned for Adlai while I was in high school. He was a gentleman, I like them. I am becoming more and more conservative as the years go by and 68 of them have gone by. I can think of NO circumstance in which I would vote for a Democratic representative, senator, govenor or President. Locally it depends on the issues. I have you on my bloglines feed and read whenever something new is up. I read at least 50 blogs and like to see what the young minds are up to. That includes Roger L Simon. He is younger than I.

Posted by: Ruth H at March 25, 2005 12:34 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I am a lifelong Republican, but less and less a Bush supporter. The issue is not foreign policy, but the immigration problem, where I perceive Bush to be in active opposition to a sane policy.

Put another way, once WMD was off the table, the rational for the Iraq war became homeland security. However, Bush’s pandering to Fox of Mexico and his active opposition to policies that would stem the tide of illegals, pretty much puts the lie to that proposition. I also think that Bush is oblivious to the level and extent of anger about this problem with broad segments of the population. Perhaps more importantly, this issue has the power to virtually destroy the Republican Party, and in the near future. I see Bush as being clueless in the extreme regarding this.

I believe that I agree with Bush on one issue likely to be dear to your heart: diplomacy. I have a generally dim view of diplomats, and consider them (especially those from Europe) a major cause of the world’s agony over the last 90 years. His recent appoints may signal that he is of the same mind.

I also find myself disagreeing with you on numerous issues. So why do I stop by? There are occasional bit of information, the rare gem of wisdom and an unusual viewpoint. I don’t visit regularly, but sometimes do when I have time. So I spend a bit of time now and then. After all, I can always click the mouse and “silence” you.

Posted by: Gary S at March 25, 2005 12:36 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I am a long time conservative with misgivings about the religious right. Pro Bush and Iraq war. First comment ever and have only been reading blogs for a few months and have been delighted with the news I find that is not reported on MSM (or reported with predjudice). Enjoy your insights and usually agree--not always, but that is why I read blogs--for different points of view.

Posted by: Mary Lee at March 25, 2005 12:38 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I must be part of that silent majority. I'm a registered Republican and I've voted Republican in every election since 1972. Originally from blue PA (although a red county within the state), I now reside in even bluer CA in the very blue Silicon Valley. Still, I visist your site daily to learn your latest insights. I don't always agree with what I read (Rummy/more boots on the ground along with some other topics), but I agree with enough of it to keep coming back.

I am surprised to read that so many of the detainees have died while in US custody, but I have greater confidence in the military's ability to deal with it than I have in the MSM's ability to report it.

Keep up the good work.

Posted by: hof at March 25, 2005 12:50 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Hi. I sm aconservative who reads you almost every day and who voted for GWB and would again. I do not always agree with you but you are reasoned in your arguments and that is what I seek. I slso read Instapundit, Powerline, the Corner, Belmont, AndrewSullivan (some days) because I want some zip in my reading.

On the torture issue, I think you are a tad harsh - we need to stay above the fray and maintain our integrity - but the problems we see in our society are mirrors of what happens rarely (although any is too often) in our militaty prisons.

The MSM blows so much out of proportion that it is really hard to find the truth. I think that is why some conservatives are unwilling to get too excited about the torture issue.

Posted by: maureen dunn at March 25, 2005 12:50 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I think more thoughtful bloggers tend to draw more of the opposition than usual because they see a chance to influence the blogger. I recall Sebastian Holsclaw's blog also has mostly liberal commenters. I suspect Yglesias's commenters are mostly liberals because Al likes to stir things up a lot more than Praktike does. And DeLong regularly censors his comments (there's practically zero chance of convincing him of anything anyway).

I bet there's a lot of the "Tipping Point" effect in there as well, since potential commenters may be emboldened if they see other commenters with similar views, so the fact that I latched onto this blog around the same time as LaT's rise may be a large part of it (I've been a reader of Praktike's since his American Footprint days). But as I've mentioned earlier to Lance, I'm not a Democrat, but a libertarian Republican, but since Bush isn't very fiscally conservative, we're no more likely to gravitate to him than any other politician.

And it's probably obvious that I comment mostly to voice disagreement or to randomly inject Natalie Portman into the conversation for no apparent reason. There are plenty of times I agree with you but don't comment.

Posted by: fling93 at March 25, 2005 12:52 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Is it just me, or are most of my readers anti-Bush? Regular commenters, I think, mostly swing Democrat a la 'liberals against terrorism' crowd. Email is mixed--but I wouldn't be surprised if more are Democrats than vice versa. Odd for someone who endorsed Bush, no? Or is there a silent majority of B.D. readers that are solid Bush supporters but comment less? Unclear. Perhaps the conservatives have mostly fled because of my Rummy-bashing and outrage at torture? Don't be shy, let me know in comments below. I'm curious as to who the hell is coming over here. Thanks.

I'm not pro-Bush, but I find your writing incisive and thoughtful. I'm one of those people who thinks it's actually good to read people with whom you disagree, even if it's just to understand someone else's perspective.

Hence, even though I'm not in any way a conservative (or even a neo-conservative), I appreciate people like you, Tom Maguire, John Cole, Sebastian Holsclaw and Daniel Drezner who make conservative arguments more eloquently and convincingly than, say, Tom DeLay or Sean Hannity.

So please, don't change just cuz us icky lefties have infested your site! We need more BD and less LGF! :-)

Posted by: B.R. at March 25, 2005 01:05 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Republican - Pro Bush - first post - good blog

Posted by: Liz at March 25, 2005 01:14 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Pro Bush but could easily be pro Lieberman.

Posted by: Systolic at March 25, 2005 01:37 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

As for me, I like long walks on the beach, candlelight dinners, holding hands, and people that can tie balloons into zoo animals ...

Posted by: praktike at March 25, 2005 01:43 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Pro-Bush, but I think you gathered that already.

Posted by: Dan Darling at March 25, 2005 01:51 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Pro-Bush, but this is weird; where did all your liberal commenters go? Do I count 3 out of 25 or so?

I guess it's true that dissenters are more likely to comment. Otherwise you'd just get "Exactly!" and "How true" and "Entirely so, Socrates". Much like the comments on this post, actually!

Posted by: Zena at March 25, 2005 02:19 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Pro-Bush here as well. Don't comment on the web much, or at all - but as a former senior GOP Hill staffer (11 years), former 2000 DoD Transition official, and current lawyer who spends too much time flying between here (DC) and London, I find your blog essential reading. I don't always agree with you, totally; but I read you every day. Good enough?

Posted by: JimKW at March 25, 2005 02:29 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Pro Iraq war, reluctant pro-Bush. Would vote for a Dem if I found one who could be trusted, hasn't happened lately. Don't comment since most of your writing is outside my areas of expertise but it is usually well reasoned so it has high utility value.

Posted by: Ink at March 25, 2005 02:38 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Democrat, anti-Bush. Respect your analytical acument and institutional and regional expertise.

Posted by: Strange Doctrines at March 25, 2005 02:42 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Columbia Undergraduate student next fall and as of yet undeclared political position. I voted for the Libertarian party in Conneticut in '04 because they are more inclined morally towards my position on social issues (essentially hands off), but I support the Niall Ferguson idea of a liberal empire. I also have a visceral distrust of the Clinton family thanks to Christopher Hitchens, and I am largely skeptical of doomsaying about the war mostly because of this blog. I'm also Canadian, and love Mark Steyn (readers of this column definetly would, judging by the comments).

I can't really say I'm pro-Bush because I didn't vote for either major party. Still, we'll worry about it in '08.

Thanks BD for all your great work. You have been an invaluable resource in my political development.

Posted by: Scott Nowers at March 25, 2005 02:45 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I'm pro Bush on foriegn policy and yet greatly disturbed about the indications of a too heavy hand on treatment of prisoners. I have held back on criticism because of the negative spin the media puts on everything connected with Iraq. I agree that the time has now come for some serious investigation and "head rolling" if prisoners are systematicly being abused and murdered. As President Bush said, "it is better to err on the side of life".
I, too, am not pleased with Bush concerning our policies with illegal immigration. I can hardly wait for the Dems to complete the process of their self destruction so that another pro-American party can arise out of its ashes. As it stands right now there is no good alternative to the Republicans.

Posted by: Bindare at March 25, 2005 03:11 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I'm a reluctant Bush supporter - I'd likely consider him awful if he did not apparently share my view on how the GWOT should be handled.

Posted by: Jason at March 25, 2005 03:18 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Excellent Job on BD. Conservative, Langavulin drinkin', Volvo drivin' Andover grad. I think you have a more conservative base, probably, based on the sites I see referring to your site (I read both sides of the spectrum policitically). I also tend to think that people in disagreement speak louder, which is probably the effect you are seeing. Frankly, I tend to agree with your perspective, and just don't have the time to comment- barely time to read and raise the kids.

Keep up the fantastic work

Posted by: ed at March 25, 2005 03:22 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I'm Pro-Bush, and also Pro-military (reservist). I disagree with you on Rummy, but I value your point of view. You've done some excellent work, and I thank you for it.

I'd also say I'd mirror Jeff B's thoughts on commenting.

Posted by: Jack Grey at March 25, 2005 03:59 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Another Bush supporter, and longtime reader who rarely if ever comments. Keep up the good work; you are one of the best sources of intelligent commentary on the web.

Posted by: Scott Free at March 25, 2005 04:09 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I'm mostly apolitical, not a member of a party, and strongly anti-Bush.

As a non-democrat I find it utterly nonabsolving that Clinton lied too.

Posted by: J Thomas at March 25, 2005 04:15 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

pro-Bush

pro-Rumsfeld

pro-BD

It'll take a very special kind of Democrat to get my vote for president. The kind that can't win the Democratic presidential nomination, I suspect.

Posted by: MattJj at March 25, 2005 04:58 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I am a two-time Bush voter and a daily reader of the Belgravia Dispatch. Please keep up the excellent work. I will comment more, now that you ask.

dred, 26
florida, usa

Posted by: dred at March 25, 2005 05:20 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Just haven't seen fit to comment yet (lately? One forgets).

I personally don't care what brutality is necessary to win the war, though I am aware it can a) look bad, especially if PR is mismanaged/stacked against you and b) have bad effects on our troops' morale, discipline, etc. (which is magnified by its furtive use). But I think if torture didn't work, only sadists would use it. (Would you prefer we summarily execute (qualified) prisoners? That would be fine too, that might work.)

It is already well known that AQ is well briefed on our interrogation techniques and their limits, which are risible. Where is Jack Bauer or Andy Sipowicz when you need them? Or is a little smacky-face or even the occasional electroshock quite beyond the pale? IMO, these people don't have the right to remain silent and they don't have the right to lie. Am I crazy for thinking that? Or should they have cable TV (complete with culturally appropriate porn) and free weights?

That wouldn't prevent me from commenting though, nor would your occasional hints of ambivalence towards Israel (to which you are perfectly entitled and from time to time possibly justified). I am trying, though, to differentiate you from Wretchard. Pro-Bush (registered independent), pro-fixing the world. You are a daily read, no fear.

Posted by: Nichevo at March 25, 2005 05:38 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Liberal Democrat, voted for Gore and Kerry (only aged 24 but would have voted for Clinton too), opponent of Iraq war, yet a regular visitor to BD. Obviously, I don't agree with Greg's positions very often, yet I always respect his judgment and integrity. Too many popular blogs on both the right on the left eschew rigorous debate for rancorous name-calling- Greg always defends his opinions with thoughtful analysis.

Also, his comment section consists of more than a half-dozen yes-men who wait for a troll to gang up on.

Keep up the good work!

Posted by: MattSchiavenza at March 25, 2005 05:39 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Pro-Bush. I like to comment on liberal sites because the arguing is more aggresive and fun. Its boring to just be part of an amen corner. But if its true that you've got mostly liberals commenting here, maybe I'll start here.

Posted by: rd at March 25, 2005 05:53 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Pro-Bush Independent. I don't believe I've ever voted a straight party ticket. I like your work, even when I disagree with it. Keep on truckin'.

Posted by: Dale Light at March 25, 2005 06:00 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Support Bush, felt deep sorrow just thinking Kerry could be elected. If I agreed with you all the time you would need to be perfect. Then there would be two of us.

Posted by: Dennis at March 25, 2005 06:32 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Registered Democrat; first-time Bush supporter in the last election. Don't agree about Rummy; I think "boots on the ground" is fading as fast as "arab street" in the liberal arsenal of catch-phrases.

You are in good company with Mr. Hitchens about the "moral Chernobyl" of Abu Graib and, as it turns out, elswhere. There can be human rights abuses only when there are human rights to begin with. The world looks on in disapproval; the Iraqis are happy to have their country back.

I read this blog eagerly every day.

Chuck Betz

Posted by: Chuck at March 25, 2005 08:10 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Pro-Bush, Pro-Rummy. Fan of thoughtful commentary, I usually try to hit your site once a day.

Posted by: ej at March 25, 2005 08:23 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Irishman living in London and fully-paid up member of Rest of the World for Bush-Cheney '04. Nobody in Dublin who's ever dealt with him seems to have a good word for Sen. Kerry and the "Benedict Arnold" talk from the ambulance-chaser was a major threat to the world's most globalised economy. The clincher was Iraq and terrorism - Bush gets it, Kerry was a faint echo.

I like the blog a lot. Someone who has broad experience in government and the real world as you do wouldn't be found in the cliquey and static government circles in Britain or Ireland.

Posted by: Peter Nolan at March 25, 2005 09:26 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Pro Bush, Pro Bush Doctrine, Pro BD, Reaganite. Views range from conservative to moderate depending on the subject. Libertarian friendly.

BD is a daily read for me because you have great posts with great content. You give me quite a bit to think about.

Keep it up!!

Posted by: cadmus at March 25, 2005 09:30 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I'm a registered Democrat. But voting for Kerry was not an option, despite my deep misgivings over Bush's domestic policies. In an ideal world, I'd vote for a candidate who could truthfully echo this statement from Obama:

"If there's a child on the South Side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child...If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for their prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandparent."

and this statement from Bush:

"Fuck saddam. We're taking him out."

And be willing to take decisive action on both. But if pressed, I would take the bargain Joe Biden mentioned in Jeffrey Golderg's latest New Yorker piece.

“Look, I have a Faustian bargain for you, you choose. I will guarantee to you that I will end all terror threats against the United States within the year, but in
return for that there will be no help for education, no help for Social Security, no help for health care."

I read the Belgravia Dispatch daily to gauge whether I made the right call in November. Your commentary is sharp, incisive, and a pleasure to mull over and argue with. Keep up the great work.

Posted by: Wilkins at March 25, 2005 09:49 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I should add, Rummy is a rock star, the US may be unworthy of having a President Cheney, and as for Wolfowitz, well, he's my boy!

PS Do remember that more effective intelligence saves lives both coalition and Iraqi, and while I do not think it was due to a dispaity of forces, I often wished we would hit them harder...be more assertive...shoot looters. Sometimes it's better to rip off a bandage than to peel it away hair by hair.

Posted by: Nichevo at March 25, 2005 10:06 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Long-time reader (and e-mailer), Canadian ex-pat, neo-con Bush supporter

Posted by: Albert Grech at March 25, 2005 10:55 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I'm a 25 year old Aussie who's a regular reader of this site. I have always voted for the conservative Coalition here, and as a lonely conservative academic in a heavily postmodernist/socialist history department enjoy reading your informed and intelligent comments on international affairs.

Posted by: Leigh McK at March 25, 2005 11:37 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Voted for Gore, then Bush. Pro-Iraq war, not too crazy about the "morality stuff" or the domestic issues, although some of my views have changed because of hearing better arguments through the blogs.

Posted by: Anne at March 25, 2005 12:37 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Registered Demo (a leftover from the days in the South when the Demo primary WAS the election) but mostly vote Repub. Love W, but not uncritically. Your blogging gives me a window into high level diplomatic thinking, and I find you usually quite sound in strategic thinking. Domestically you come across at patrician, much like Bush 1, and don't seem to realize what a crushing moral disappointment he turned out to be to people like me.

Posted by: Angus at March 25, 2005 12:38 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Democrat, rabidly anti-Bush policies (don't know enough to have an opinion about the man), regular reader of this site (as well as other libertarian/conservative sites). Primarily interested in your views on the rule of law as expressed through your anti-torture posts but find other topics amusing as well. This administration has demonstrated an utter contempt for the rule of law and this will be its greatest, and most destructive, legacy. We need more conservative bloggers to beat that drum.

Posted by: dmh at March 25, 2005 12:50 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I'm a Democrat against terrorism, I'd describe myself as a moderate.

But I think the Democrats are making a big mistake elevating the Dean wing to leadership of the Dems, and that's bad because it means most security-conscious folks will turn to Bush and his eventual Republican successors.

From Bush's endorsement of a huge new entitlement, absolute lack of spending discipline on existing spending, and total commitment to tax cuts uber alles, his domestic leadership will cause enormous problems for future generations, not the least of which being our national debt and the massive interest payments on it will cripple our strength and leadership in the world.

Why the Dems don't make the point that Bush's profligacy is a matter of national security is beyond me.

But then I'm out of touch with both parties these days, being concerned with both the war on terror and fiscal conservatism.

Posted by: Eric at March 25, 2005 01:28 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I don't know if I'm part of a silent majority or not, but I'm a conservative (more of the libertarian vein) that voted for Bush twice. I appreciate your views re: Rummy, torture, etc. though I do not agree with all of them. I believe that you are extremely well reasoned in your thinking and present very cogent arguments. Plus, you seem to be willing to entertain divergent viewpoints and debate them in a civilized manner, as evidenced by your recent back-and-forth w/ Matt Y. I wish there were more blogs willing to do that. Please keep up the good work. Calling it commendable is an understatement.

Posted by: Chris at March 25, 2005 02:12 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Like some of your other commentors on this post, I consider myself conservative. I read BD because it takes a calmer and better balanced view of what's going on than most. I don't always agree, but cogent arguments well-argued are even more valuable when they challenge my views and assumptions. Keep up the good work, Greg!

Posted by: Jem at March 25, 2005 02:45 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Strongly pro-Bush, although living in a highly blue enclave with blue wife and daughters.

Re Friedman: Is 26 a lot? Can the number reasonably be zero? How many Assistant Secretaries do you fire before they are more concerned with CYA than winning the war? How many prisoners were killed in WWII? I do not defend any particular act, but stuff happens in war and if you set up rules and bureaucratic consequences sufficiently stringent to prevent any such things from happening, you will probably as a practical matter by so doing also prevent the effective prosecution of the war. Is it possible that the NYT people understand this perfectly well, and that this is what they want?

Posted by: Mike at March 25, 2005 03:12 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Pro B.D.!
Pro Bush!
Pro Rumsfeld!
Pro Wolfowitz!
Pro Lagavulin, Laphroaig, Talisker AND Macallan!
I am just about to finish reading "How to talk to
a liberal (if you must)" by you know who, so - hey,
maybe one of these days I will start commenting?!
Meanwhile, your posting are a daily MUST in this
house.
Keep up the excellent work!

Posted by: jd at March 25, 2005 03:17 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Liberal, voted for Kerry.

Posted by: washerdreyer at March 25, 2005 03:27 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Pro-Bush, conservative, ex-green beret, current law student, Laphroaig drinker, Seattle area resident.

Don't always agree, but find your work insightful and intelligent.

Posted by: ronin at March 25, 2005 03:33 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

life long dem, pro-Lieberman, cast a write in ballot in 2004, would have voted Kerry if he had expressed commitment to democratizing Iraq and Mid East. Favorite neo con is Wolfie, despite all.
Blogs - BD, WOC, Rantburg, Drezner, sometimes Sullivan, Yglesias (but what i get in MY i can get from MSM, so why bother?) Im way more liberal on economics, more conservative on most everything else than Sully, and find him kinda annoying. You're interesting, if I find myself a tad more sympathetic to the Neocons (and to Israeli pols, including SOME likudniks, like Sharon and Olmert, than you are)

Posted by: liberalhawk at March 25, 2005 03:36 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

In response to your query regarding the composition of your readership - I'm a lifelong liberal. I'd classify myself more or less as a "classical" liberal. I am one of those who loathes Bush because he is a mendacious, elitist (as in Ayn Rand), Manichaean ideologue. The fourth estate disappoints more and more as a source of facts, with it's focus on the bottom line. It is neither liberal nor conservative. I scour the Web for facts and alternate points of view. You host one of the conservative sites that seems more reality based than most. I'm not looking for mirrors.

Posted by: emscol at March 25, 2005 04:13 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Pro Bush, Pro Rumsfeld conservative Reagan Democrat. I think I may be the last one around, now that Zell Miller's retired. I try to get here every day or so; dont always comment but I dont usually comment when I agree with what I'm reading.

Posted by: akaky at March 25, 2005 04:17 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Anti-Bush, pro-military. I come here for the free peanuts... and the differing point of view. Good writing, but I'm usually (75 percent) disagreeing with your posts. But hey, I'm one of those crazies that believes in dialogue instead of shouting epitaths.

Posted by: J. at March 25, 2005 04:27 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

It is only natural for political liberals to write criticizing Bush and for conservatives without strong views on specific issues to embrace his.

Bush is, after all, the leader of the more conservative political party. He got the most votes in the last election. To most conservatives his position must be the de facto conservative position -- as Reagan's position was 20 years ago, and Nixon's 15 years before that. This is true, for the most part, regardless of the issue or what the position is.

I understand why most conservatives would feel this way. To be in frequent disagreement with the legitimate conservative leader requires an awfully high opinion of one's own instincts and judgment about public policy. It requires that even more than it does a low opinion of Bush. Most conservatives are nowhere near that arrogant.

Posted by: Zathras at March 25, 2005 04:30 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Your name comes up on non-conservative blogs as a voice of reason on the right. I rarely have time to read your analyses in depth, but I find comfort in knowing where to find a pro-Bush voice that isn't smug, dismissive, or cheap.

I hope this post doesn't reflect a crack in your hull; remeber how the great USS Clueless sank in the deep sea of shallow emails.

Posted by: brent at March 25, 2005 04:34 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Lukewarm Bush supporter. Can't stand much about many of his policies, but hate the alternatives held out to me even more.

Posted by: Chrees at March 25, 2005 04:52 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Voted for Clinton twice, Gore once and Bush in 04.

Will vote Republican again in 08 if the Democrats don't come up with an alternative to the Michael Moore, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Babs Boxer, ect.,ect. wing of the party.

I stop by once a week or so to see whats new at BD. Always appreciate the insight and the thoughtful comments. It's a breath of fresh air compared to the vitriol spewed on some sites.

Posted by: jvk at March 25, 2005 05:16 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I am not anti-Bush, but I wouldn't call myself pro-Bush either. I am generally a defender of his foreign policy, a hater of his domestic/economic policy, and I voted for Kerry.

Posted by: EJ at March 25, 2005 05:38 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

A Red State Republican, pro-Bush/anti-Kerry, however more Libertarian than anything. I check in every couple of days, to get some fresh perspective on topics not covered in depth out here in fly-over country. Have to take bourbon over scotch, though. Never a blog commenter before, but thought I'd add to the sample size.

Posted by: DSM at March 25, 2005 05:46 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I'm something of an anarchist, in the Orwell vein--the dignity of the individual is my central value, but pragmatic. Interested in results. That type of anarchist tends to lean right--libertarian with a strong social conscience (while libertarians are solely concerned with governmental tyranny, I'm concerned with corporate tyranny as well).

If my choices were limited to Bush and Kerry, I would have chosen Bush.

I read you because I tend to be attracted to blogs by people who seriously and honestly wrestle with the issue of the day and come to their best conclusion, without reference to which side of the isle that puts them. If their conclusion tends to be conservative more often than liberal, then they're a conservative blogger.

I assume the flip side is true, but that's somewhat hypothetical as I've had very little luck at finding intelligent intellectually honest bloggers who tend to come to liberal conclusions.

Posted by: Ignatius Byrd at March 25, 2005 06:01 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I find myself to be hard-pressed to be pro-anyone these days. Choosing between most politicians falls in the "lesser of two evils" category for me. Overall I don't really care for Bush, especially socially (though I'm convinced a fair amount of his positions on this are political and not deeply-held), but do recognize his foreign policy approach as something that likely just needed to be done. Then there's the economy, I don't know what you'd call him on that. Certainly pissed off many Republicans. And "states rights'" has of late seemed a concept to be used selectively.

I generally come here often for good insights, and even when I disagree, you seem to possess the increasingly rare ability to have a civil, reasoned point of view and discussion on things. Most sites (left/right/etc.) are endless derision or sniping, and I can only roll my eyes so much.

Posted by: ToddG at March 25, 2005 06:22 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Oh and the flip-side of non-Bush is the sorry state of the Democratic party these days doesn't give me anyone to support there either. What a mess. So there's the "lesser of two evils" thing.

Posted by: ToddG at March 25, 2005 06:23 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Pro-Bush but rarely comment. I like to think that most conservatives are level-headed enough not to leave your site just because you can be critical of the administration. It's your honesty not your ideology that keeps me reading.

Posted by: Brett at March 25, 2005 07:20 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Wolfowitzian neo-con and generally pro-Bush, save for his flips on protectionist tariffs (steel), the drug benefit, and campaign finance. Generally find myself in agreement with you BD, with the exception of your criticism of Rumsfeld on the size of the Iraq force. I have always disagreed that we needed a larger force in Iraq, but se la vie. I like the site quite a bit and read it several times a week. Incidentally, I also enjoy a good scotch and went to Andover. Keep up the good work.

Posted by: Patrick at March 25, 2005 08:16 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I'm a lifelong repub. Comment to blogs only occasionally. Read yours about twice a week. Agree with a previous poster about Bush's stand on immigration. It's a very serious issue. Security is an issue, but another that gets little play is what the huge number if illegals are doing to our culture. In the past we relied on assimilation. There are now, (or soon will be) to many to assimilate. Then, those underlying American characteristics that make is unique will likely be lost. Here in Arizona a "vigilante" group of about 1000 strong plans on"helping" the border patrol. Not a comforting thought, but vigilante groups have tended to form when there is a vacum of effective government. I'm not anti-immigration, but I am anti-head-in-the-sand "enforcement" of our immigration laws. For this, I condem President Bush.

Posted by: Don Le Messurier at March 25, 2005 08:49 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I read you (irregularly, not that I'm not glad when I do visit that I have, just that there are so many things to read) as along with Drezner a level-headed, humane and informed conservative.
I am myself strongly anti-Bush. His great deeds: an unaffordable tax cut, a war fought on false premises, an occupation undertaken without preparation or purpose, and now a proposal for a new government-run savings program to be funded by gutting another that works quite well when instead what cries out for attention is the impending crisis in health care. A smarmy man who prides himself on having lied about his use of drugs and disdains his opponent for having told the truth about his. And just now would wrest the cortex-less body of a man's wife from him because, he implies, he values life and the man does not.
I was quite disappointed that someone of your acumen and knowledge would have been taken in by such a lowlife leader.

Posted by: Disappointed at March 25, 2005 09:14 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Sensible people only comment when they need to.

I read you because of your international perspective, not because of positions on Bush or Rumsfeld. I'm here to learn.

Posted by: sbw at March 25, 2005 09:21 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Very pro-Bush, and I don't believe I've commented here before.

Don't agree with all your view points, but enjoy your analysis.

Peace...

Posted by: Keith, Indianapolis at March 25, 2005 09:24 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Pro-Bush & Pro BD!

I'm even a Rummy and Rice fan and still appreciate your insights.

Keep it up BD!

Posted by: Mark at March 25, 2005 09:53 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I'm a Bush supporter,rarely comment. I think your leftist viewers feel impelled to comment,we don't.

Posted by: Patrci at March 25, 2005 10:02 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Pro-Bush, Republican since 1940s. I was Repub. before it was cool.

Posted by: N. B. at March 25, 2005 10:06 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I'm a Kerry voter very approving of Bush's foreign policy but appalled at his fiscal irresponsibility and cavalier attitude towards human rights. I dream that someday we will have a political party that believes in limited government in all senses of the word but will not cringe or look the other way when America is attacked.

Posted by: jim linnane at March 25, 2005 10:18 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Perhaps the conservatives have mostly fled because of my...outrage at torture?

Just step back and look at what you're saying.

Posted by: rdg at March 25, 2005 10:56 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I like Bush more and more all the time, but I didn't expect to at the start. I really disliked his dad's administration (liked Reagan's, though) and expected more of the same. Boy was I wrong. W. is cut from different cloth. He has backbone and conviction, even when I disagree with him, which is something I never saw in his father. People keep saying he's more like his mother. If so, hats off to her.

I suppose you could say I am a Reagan Democrat even though I was too young to vote for him. Voted for Clinton twice but just couldn't get excited enough by Gore to be bothered voting in 2000. Started to really turn off on the Democrats when Gore withdrew his concession and started vote-hunting in Florida. I thought that was terribly damaging for the country, not to mention the Democratic party. 9/11 sealed the deal, but my attitute since then was always more anti-Dem/Kerry than pro-Bush. I didn't really start to appreciate W. as a person until quite recently. His perserverence on Iraq and support for democracy have been truly admirable. Not many politicians of either party would have had the guts to perservere in similar circumstances. (To be fair, the same must be said for Blair and Howard as well.)

BTW, I really like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz too. I suspect future historians will look back and conclude that the war and occupation went just about as well as could be expected, despite all the talk of miscalculations, mistakes, errors of judgement, etc. (Of course there have been mistakes, but there always are). The torture problem was disgraceful, but frankly it could have been much worse. I suppose I could vote for the Dems again in the future if the party regains its sanity on foreign affairs, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

I love your site because your arguments are always well reasoned and because you take opposing points of view seriously, unlike some of the wack-os on both the left and the right. I also like Instapundit, Michael Totten, Daniel Drezner and Roger Simon for the same reasons. I read BD about every other day.

Finally, I just want to say 'thank you' for doing such a great job on this blog. The world needs more like it.

Posted by: Coleman Nee at March 25, 2005 11:13 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Libertarian-leaning conservative... mostly pro-Bush.. mostly I lurk :)

Posted by: David at March 26, 2005 12:11 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Dear Greg,

your site is reason's shelter in the storm. I voted for Bush in his second election b/c the Left has proven childish and barren of ideas in response to the Islamist facists who want to murder us. Walter.

Posted by: walter at March 26, 2005 12:18 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

"Libertarian-leaning conservative... mostly pro-Bush.. mostly I lurk :)"

Likewise.

Posted by: Paul Dubuc at March 26, 2005 12:29 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

i think the reason why there are many anti-bush "libs vs. terror" types here is because they are trying to convince Greg to switch his support from bush to the dem side.

as for me, i'm pro bush although i am no conservative. one of the main reasons why i continue to read this site is because greg made the right decision to support bush, unlike sullivan and drezner -- who are smart people, but i cant really take them seriously anymore for supporting a loser like kerry.

Posted by: john marzan at March 26, 2005 04:50 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Registered democrat, voted Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Bush. Thankfully Bush won in 2000 because Gore proved to be out there. Jewish liberal family although convinced my wife to vote Bush 2004 and we are pretty much outcasts in the family.

Your site has been a real education, Thank you...(BTW first post)

Posted by: Steven at March 26, 2005 04:57 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Mostly libertanian leaning pro-pro-Bush Canadian/Quebecker (I believe we are a tiny tiny minority here, almost extinct or non-existant ;) ), former Left-leaning Democratic supporter and disillusioned believer in the EU, sadly.

Your site is a daily must-read. So thanks for taking the time. It is greatly appreciated.

Posted by: Mike at March 26, 2005 05:02 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Count me as a loyal reader (and loyal Republican) who voted for George W. Bush twice.

Posted by: D.J. at March 26, 2005 06:24 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

You have a great blog! I'm also in the "silent majority", a conservative who voted for Bush both times. (tho I'm really irritated about the Schiavo grandstanding) I have Instapundit as my homepage, but you're usually my second or third stop...

Posted by: rob at March 26, 2005 06:46 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

i'm a political independent. i refuse to allign myself to what i see as faults in both parties. i'm generally hawkish on foreign policy (i.e. i think foreign policy without a big stick is wishfull thinking- hello europe- it's fun to judge without responsibility, isn't it?), i'm not a fan of the government making decisions that i should make, i'm pro-choice, when it comes to the funds i invest in social security, and i'm socially pretty liberal. i think the first step in not hindering social security reform is not racking up what will amount to trillions in debt (and possibly more serious results), by making the gov't bigger and more beaurocratic. but don't lable me an economic idiot, gov, i read thomas sowell. i just don't have faith that the neo-cons are heading in the right economic direction. i'm sorry, everything i wrote is muddled. let's chalk it up to a friday night, ok?
summery:

social libertarian (mostly anti-bush domestically), and foreign policy neo-con (sometimes it seems like genius, other times, less- so.)

ps- feeling a little uncomfortable about selling pakistan f-16's (regional equality and all that seems to me to make the pissing contest even worse) india is obviously a more valuable long- term partner. i understand the reward system (were's poland in this equation?), but considering the odds on pervez's assassination in the near future, what are the pro's ?

Posted by: henry at March 26, 2005 08:16 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Pro-Bush on Foreign Policy, unimpressed otherwise. Will vote for anyone willing to push Democracy worldwqide. Could be swayed by excessive Big Govt. I read you two to three times a week, and like what I read.

Posted by: Lindsey at March 26, 2005 04:13 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Pro thinking, pro free speech. Pro-Bush/Rummy but not without reservations. You have good thinking and comments from a broad range of opinion. Infuriating at times, but that's happens when smart people think.

Your site and commenters avoid the imputation of motives to players and deal with the implications of their policies more than others.

Posted by: Richard Heddleson at March 26, 2005 04:22 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

very pro-gwb, not so pro-republican. i do get miffed at your swipes at Rumsfield and at what i consider undue concern for the various prisoner issues. when i get pissed off enough i stop reading for a few weeks, but eventually i come back because you have (for me) a unique and valuable perspective. this is the first time i have commented here.

Posted by: cjm at March 26, 2005 06:19 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

LIberal but still within the first standard deviation of the middle. Democrat who voted Bush. In a choice between extremities had to go with the guy that didn't make false promises and never tried to whip a crowd up into a fury of hatred.

Posted by: A. Lurker at March 26, 2005 06:45 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Love the blog, read it faithfully. Pro-Bush and life long Republican. Between your site and John Bachelor's radio show, I don't need to go anywhere else for news and commentary.

Keep up the good work. The "silent majority" is watching (and reading).

Posted by: JTO at March 26, 2005 07:22 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I'm a McCain/Swartzenegger Repub, but still wistful for my "progressive" early years. If the judiciary is purged of the dummies that check their common sense at the door and try to legislate from the Bench, and if the Gephardt/Biden (H.Clinton?) wing of the Dems could come up with a coherent progressive program, I could be lured back.

Posted by: wayne at March 26, 2005 07:58 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Liberal at 20
Conservative at 40
Agree with him or not ,W does what he says he'll
do. In today's politics, that is rare.
B.D. is a treat

Posted by: Mike at March 26, 2005 08:00 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Like so many who have posted above, I'm a centrist independent who voted for Bush in 04 despite misgivings about his domestic politics. I'm libertarian on social issues, suspicious of the religious right, and concerned about Bush's lack of fiscal discipline. However, defense trumps everything. Bush's choices since 9/11 have been vindicated by recent events. In contrast, the Dean - Pelosi - Kennedy axis have made sure that the the Democratic Party will offer no credible alternative for the immediate future.
I visit your site often because I appreciate the reasoned argument and the freedom from ideological cant.

Posted by: tjl at March 26, 2005 08:30 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

As for as national security and foreign policy, I'm for Bush all the way.

Not as fond of some of his domestic agenda.

Posted by: RebeccaH at March 26, 2005 08:55 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I'm Canadian, but pro-Bush on foreign policy and tax-cuts.

Posted by: Alex at March 26, 2005 10:40 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Pro-Bush, neocon in outlook. Libertarian in social/moral issues.

Like your blog, well-reasoned discussion. First time comment.

Posted by: Ray at March 27, 2005 03:39 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Dyed (blue) in the wool Democrat on social issues. Very interested in liberals against terrorism in foreign policy. Love your writing.

Posted by: gaw3 at March 27, 2005 05:49 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Pro-unastonished by the creative world-views being presented here.

Anti-optimistic that things will improve very much very soon.

By the way, you're not selling my email addy by any chance, are you? I do realize it's the neo-American way, but... just for leaving a comment?

Posted by: S Ty at March 27, 2005 05:55 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Moderate -- vote Republican nationally, Democratic in NC.
Very pro-Bush on foreign policy, esp. now that he's got a Secty State who's willing to travel, make the pitch, not undercut. Domestic (esp. socially conservative) policy a real disappointment.

Regular reader, blue moon commenter.

Posted by: JM Hanes at March 28, 2005 09:42 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Australian. Horrified by the first Bush administration (bullshit war) and even more by the second (Bolton to the UN - come on!)

A country where a majority reject evolution and global warming is a country of loonies. USA under Bush - It's like somebody gave a 7 year old an AK-47 for his birthday.

Posted by: AlanDownunder at March 28, 2005 10:16 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Cub fan, Bush man--but not on the Schiavo case.

Posted by: Hutch at March 28, 2005 11:43 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Militant liberal, still in mourning over 1968 and 1972 elections, generally a Clinton fan, favor impeachment hearings into Bush/Rumsfeld war and intell and pow mismanagement; but I read you because I like to have my assumptions challenged by intelligent thinkers.

Posted by: Ken at March 28, 2005 05:01 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Libertarian conservative who feels that your "anti torture discussion" stance encourages rather than prevents torture.

Posted by: John Thacker at March 28, 2005 05:03 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

...moderately pro Bush. Don't bother to comment. Unlikely to convince those that hold their opinions for other than rational reasons. I don't want to waste my time in a battle of wits with an unarmed lefty.

Posted by: MadJohn at March 28, 2005 08:09 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

BTW...also pro BD

Posted by: MadJohn at March 28, 2005 08:14 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Pro-Bush in foreign policy here, and pro-BD. I comment from time-to-time, but all the best lines are always taken.

Posted by: Bruce at March 28, 2005 10:35 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Undergrad at Penn State currently studying in Spain; going to Army after graduation this December. Pro-Bush, pro Iraq war and GWOT. I have an awful lot of trust in Bush (gut instinct about W). I deeply admire Rummy (his career in public service is unparalled) as well as Cheney (ditto his career) and Condi Rice (how could you not admire the woman, despite some what appeared to be mismanagement of the NSC?). I'm honestly a little apathetic about the torture situation. 30% of the time I really couldn't care, as I assume many of these prisoners are a bunch of thugs and deserve a little humiliation; 70% of the time I wake up to reality and realize we can't have this hypocritical stain on our sleeves as we continue to fight the good fight. Fiscal conservative, church-going Catholic, conservative-to-moderate on social issues (pro-life on abortion, anti-death penalty; anti-gay marriage, pro-civil unions). Regular reader of B.D. Very much enjoy your voice, as I do the chaps at Oxblog. LOVE Christopher Hitchens. Never miss Tom Friedman. Andrew Sullivan always keeps me thinking and honest. You all gotta check out Tom Barnett (www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog), as well.

Posted by: Matty V at March 28, 2005 11:43 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Pro Bush, Pro Rumsfeld, Pro Condi, Pro 2nd Amendment, Give War a Chance. A former Born-Socialist, who's parents both degreed (MA/PhD) in Education (but with no training, inkling, or concern for Economics) were former overseas Missionaries adopted 70's "Liberation Theology" and now aligned along the Allende-Chile/Cuba/Nicaragua axis for "Social Justice" at whatever cost.

Posted by: -keith in mtn. view at March 29, 2005 04:19 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I'm conservative, but Pro-Bush because of his cajones and leadership. I'm not all too happy with some of his decisions and leanings (immigration), but who's perfect and who's better? Also, no nation has a better cabinet and administration.

Posted by: Dave at March 30, 2005 08:37 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink
Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch
"Awake"
--New York Times
"Must-read list"
--Washington Times
"Pompous Ass"
--an anonymous blogospheric commenter
Recent Entries
Search
English Language Media
Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Non-English Language Press
U.S. Blogs
Columnists
Think Tanks
Law & Finance
Security
Books
The City
Western Europe
France
United Kingdom
Germany
Italy
Netherlands
Spain
Central and Eastern Europe
CIS/FSU
Russia
Armenia
East Asia
China
Japan
South Korea
Middle East
Egypt
Israel
Lebanon
Syria
B.D. In the Press
Archives
Categories
Syndicate this site:
XML RSS RDF

G2E

Powered by