 |
 |
   Read the story and see the video discussion by the authors about why creeping consolidation is crushing American livelihoods.
 A forensic tool renowned for exonerating the innocent may actually be putting them in prison.
 Crises can force even the most dysfunctional governments to changeand Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou aims to prove it.
|
   |
|
|
November 27, 2006
By: HOUSE INTELLIGENCE UPDATE....In the soap opera that is the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee, the latest chatter is that instead of selecting compromise candidate Silvestre Reyes, perhaps Nancy Pelosi should dig even deeper and select compromise-compromise candidate Rush Holt. Over at Ezra's site, Neil comments:
Holt is a good guy, and his reasons for opposing the war resolution showed good judgment. He'd probably do fine as chair of the Intelligence Committee. However, if Holt made any firm statements questioning the existence of Iraq's WMD programs back in 2002, I haven't been able to find them. He appears to have believed Iraq had an active WMD program as much as anyone, which shouldn't be a surprise since this belief was shared at the time by virtually every intelligence agency in the world, including the CIA. (Yes, the Bush administration exaggerated the CIA's finding, but the CIA did clearly report their belief that Iraqi WMD programs were active and dangerous.) There also seems to be more than a whiff of retribution here against any Democrat who supported the war resolution, and that strikes me as pretty counterproductive. After all, nearly half the Democratic caucus supported the resolution, and we really don't want to declare every one of these folks persona non grata on all issues related to national security. Karl Rove would have a field day with that, wouldn't he? In any case, it sure seems to me that Nancy Pelosi should make a decision about this ASAP, if only to keep idle fingers like mine and Neil's from chattering about this stuff endlessly. For better or worse, she ought to put this to bed. —Kevin Drum 1:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (87)Comments
It doesn't matter who Pelosi supports. They are all liberals and will sell the country out for 30 pieces of silver. America is in for a very bleak period. Posted by: Al on November 27, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINKWell, the voters took their "retribution" against war supporters in the elections, so is it really that unreasonable for House leadership to represent that fact? Posted by: PMC on November 27, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINKWhat other intelligence agency thought Iraq had a WMD program? Oh, okay, maybe the ones that got their information from the CIA. Posted by: terry k on November 27, 2006 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINKI don't think that intelligence services claimed that Iraq had WMD as much as they were willing to assume that it did until proved otherwise. Primarily, this was a result of being burned by the existence of a nuclear program in Iraq (although I'm not sure that it was much of one). Once Cheney et alii, started banging on about it, there seemed to be resistence to the idea, thus requiring multiple trips to Langley, and convenient misplacing of CIA memos in re the state of the union speech, et cetera. Posted by: jhm on November 27, 2006 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINKAfter all, nearly half the Democratic caucus supported the resolution, and we really don't want to declare every one of these folks unfit for further duty on committees related to national security. Really? Why not? Are you saying that being spectacularly wrong on the key national security question of our time shouldn't somehow be disqualifying? If being wrong on Iraq doesn't deserve a demerit, then what on Earth does? Here's a simple idea: let's promote the people who were right and put aside the people who were wrong. I know, I know, pushing this makes me a crazy radical hippie, but maybe it's so crazy it just might work.... Karl Rove would have a field day with that, wouldn't he? Rove? Who's he? Fuck that loser. As if he's still relevant. Karl Rove would have a field day with that, wouldn't he? Yeah, just like he had a field day in the November 2006 midterms...oh, wait. Posted by: Stefan on November 27, 2006 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINKRead Glenn Greenwald's post today, Kevin. There's a reason this appears to be a soap opera. Posted by: gussie on November 27, 2006 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINKRush Holt would be a dynamite choice as Intelligence Committee Chair. A Princeton physicist must have plenty of intelligence. :) Put another way, who would you rather have in that key position -- the smartest person in Congress or a crooked judge? Sad to say, of the two, only the crooked judge is in contention for the job. Posted by: ex-liberal on November 27, 2006 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINKKevin, You would be well served to read Glenn Greenwald's piece on this issue. It is urgent that Jane Harman not be named to head the House Intelligence Committee, because of her track record of swallowing everything the neocons fed her and her support of illegal wiretapping. The dispute between Pelosi and Harman is substantive, and the media have presented it like it is some kind of girl-catfight. Also, there is no seniority rule for the intelligence committee; Pelosi can name whoever she wants. Finally, it was not universally believed that Iraq had an active WMD program; Scott Ritter said otherwise, and was promptly smeared as a possible Iraqi agent. After that, other skeptics got the message and kept their heads down. Posted by: Joe Buck on November 27, 2006 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINKIt doesn't bother me if pre-Iraq invasion some Democrat thought the Iraqis had WMBs. After all didn't Don Rumsfeld still have the receipts. What I would love to see is someone who realizes there are and should be significant differences between American and Isreali foreign policy. Everybody talks about the riff between Harmon and Pelsoi as being some sort of vindictive cat fight, but that isn't the way I see it. What is going on, and isn't being reported much, is the battle the Israelis, and their neocon allies, are fighting to continue domination of our intelligence and foreign policy thinking. I don't blame them for trying. I blame us for forgetting that Israel is a foreign power and naturally has a different point of view. I blame us more for forgetting that the neocons have been wrong about everything they have ever touched. I would prefer a congressman who was impeached for plan old bribery running the house intelligence committee to someone who shows more loyalty to a foreign power than to the United States of America. That is what you get if Pelosi caves to Jane Harmon. Sad to say, of the two, only the crooked judge is in contention for the job. Yes, sad to say, as compared to when the Republicans were in power and it was all crooks. Posted by: Stefan on November 27, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINKKarl Rove would have a field day with that, wouldn't he? Karl Rove? Doesn't ring a bell. Oh wait, isn't he that jolly old fat guy down at the Mickey D's? Posted by: ckelly on November 27, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINKWhoops. Sorry Stefan. Cheney, you screwed up. It is "the Democrat Congress" not "the Democratic Congress." Posted by: Ron Byers on November 27, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINKI am shitting myself shitless in anticipation. Posted by: norbizness on November 27, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINKThere's also seems to be more than a whiff of retribution here against any Democrat who supported the war resolution, and that strikes me as pretty counterproductive. 655,000 dead Iraqi Civilians and 2880 dead American troops disagree. PS. This whole appointments sideshow is nothing more than an attempt by the Corporate Newsmedia to try to paint Pelosi in a bad light, to take the wind out of the sails of those who voted for change in the last election. I don't ever recall hearing this much controversy over committee appointments in any congressional election in the past. That's because the controversy in this case, is artificial. Posted by: impeach.remove.convict.punish.justice on November 27, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINKNo worries, ckelly. Annoying, isn't it, the tendency of pundits like Drum to keep buying into the GOP spin of Rove as some sort of mastermind, even in the face of clear and incontrovertible evidence that Rove is a loser? Shows how hard it is to shake a master narrative off once it's established itself. Posted by: Stefan on November 27, 2006 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINKwhich shouldn't be a surprise since at that time a belief that Iraq had WMD programs was shared by virtually every intelligence agency in the world, including the CIA. Christ, and here's another bit of repackaged Republican spin courtesy of Drum. The reason "virtually every intelligence agency in the world" believed Saddam had WMD isn't because they had come to an independent conclusion about it, it was because they were told so by the CIA and believed us. After all, it's not as if Norway and New Zealand and Japan etc. etc. had many independent intelligence assets in Iraq, or that they were running their own spy operations there. We told them a lie, they believed the lie, and we then used their belief in our lie as further justification for the lie, in an endless feedback loop of deception. Posted by: Stefan on November 27, 2006 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINKIn any case, it sure seems to me that Nancy Pelosi should make a decision about this ASAP, if only to keep idle fingers like mine and Neil's from chattering about this stuff endlessly. For better or worse, she ought to put this to bed. Yeah really, can Pelosi lead are will we continue this "infighting" past Christmas? Posted by: Cheryl on November 27, 2006 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINKStefan is on the case today, in spades. Kevin, does your ass hurt yet? Posted by: craigie on November 27, 2006 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINKBeing in charge of the Intelligence Committee is not only about who was unafraid to speak out against the WMD disinformation and who was not. It is also about who understands some of the other disinformation. Rush Holt understands that the Bush Administration's missile defense program is an utter failure in testing, but a widely propagandized and massively funded program. And even during the worst of times when anybody who spoke out against BushCo was at risk of being smeared a traitor, he made a public statement. When the program's testing was jiggered to produce favorable results despite failure, he signed on with the other Congressional physicist to denounce it. [...] Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ), one of only two physicists in the House of Representatives, and an international arms control expert, said: "Science has once again been trumped by politics. This amounts to another 'Mission Accomplished' declaration by the administration." [...] http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/scientists-find-plans-to-deploy-us-missile-defense-system-ignore-technical-realities.html Posted by: dano on November 27, 2006 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINKSo I see Charlie/Thomas/Jeffery is back to calling himself Cheney again. Run out of other nyms, dickhead? Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on November 27, 2006 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINKIn any case, it sure seems to me that Nancy Pelosi should make a decision about this ASAP, if only to keep idle fingers like mine and Neil's from chattering about this stuff endlessly. For better or worse, she ought to put this to bed. Sorry Kevin, but this tripe is really inane. Do we really want Pelosi making key decisions based on the intersection of an average bloggers IQ and their idle finger time (even in jest)? I think it would be great if anyone who was wrong on Iraq was banished from the intelligence and foreign service establishment. I don't care especially who we start with, but I see no need to reward failure among our electeds or senior civil servants. Posted by: matt w on November 27, 2006 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINKYes, matt, it's not like the Dems who were fooled are not being allowed into the House cafeteria. It's just that we should have the smarter, more ethical ones in charge of what's called, you know, Intelligence. Posted by: Kenji on November 27, 2006 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINKAfter all, nearly half the Democratic caucus supported the resolution, and we really don't want to declare every one of these folks persona non grata on all issues related to national security. Yes, by all means, let's give them another chance to fuck up. After all, this time their mistake only cost hundreds of thousands of dead, millions maimed and wounded, and devastating damage to America's military readiness and strategic position in the Middle East and throughout the widcer world. With credentials like these, why not let them take another bite at the apple? Jesus, the reluctance to hold people accountable for their mistakes is truly astonishing. Posted by: Stefan on November 27, 2006 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINKAfter all, nearly half the Democratic caucus supported the resolution, and we really don't want to declare every one of these folks persona non grata on all issues related to national security. Or, in simpler terms: nearly half the Democratic caucus were gullible idiots, and we really don't want to declare the gullible idiots persona non grata on all issues related to national security. Does it make more sense like that? Because it still reads like nonsense to me.... Posted by: Stefan on November 27, 2006 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINKGood thing he cheated his lying ass off then, wasn't it? I mean, otherwise he couldn't have turned a 1% victory into a crowning mandate permitting absolutely everything. Posted by: Kenji on November 27, 2006 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINKI've got a better idea - let's dismantle the CIA entirely. In many respects, they are the ones that got us into the geopolitical mess we find ourselves in, by funding Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and various other sundry homicidal maniacs. The CIA is also very likely responsible for killing both JFK, with George H.W. Bush and Richard Nixon playing supporting roles, and Bobby Kennedy. The CIA, formed as a result of the misnamed National Security Act of 1947, in any case, is unConstitutional since they do not report their receipts and expenditures to Congress, as required by the Constitution. Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on November 27, 2006 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINKPelosi should keep dragging her feet. Right now, there are bucketfulls of wingnuts looking for something to get upset about with the new Congress. What's wrong with them being upset about the fact that Pelosi is considering Hastings? She isn't going to actually choose Hastings, so in the end all of the doomsdayers will look stupid for caring about such a non-issue. After she chooses the Chairs, the wingnuts might start complaining about things that matter. It probably won't happen, but one always has to be prepared. Posted by: reino on November 27, 2006 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINKO Kevin! I bow before you, with humble thanks for the gift of linkage! Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf on November 27, 2006 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINKI see that Stefan has never heard of: the Mossad each of these agencies, utilizing their own assets, independently assessed Iraq as having active WMD programs. (I agree that this was at least partially a result of missing the extent of the Iraq nuclear program in the past as well as missing the Pakistani program -- but that was the historical context.) Posted by: Nathan on November 27, 2006 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINKKevin, you're naive if you think that the Beltway chattering class won't keep this alive after the decision has been made if they don't get Harman. Posted by: Carl Nyberg on November 27, 2006 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINKHere's Holt's commentary on the vote. Of course, this seems to be an ex post facto recounting of his reasons, so it's not as good as if we could get some quote from him from 2002: I voted against the Congressional resolution authorizing President Bush to use force against Iraq, primarily because there was no evidence of an Iraq connection to 9/11, because there was no evidence that Saddam posed an immediate threat to us with WMD, and because I believed the President's new-found enthusiasm for a "preemptive war" doctrine was both unconstitutional and dangerous. Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf on November 27, 2006 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINKI see that Nathan doesn't understand the phrase "virtually every." If he did, he would have understood that I was referring to Drum's statment that "this belief was shared at the time by virtually every intelligence agency in the world," and not specifically to the Mossad, MI6, and/or DGSE. While each of those agencies may have made an independent assessment, it is irrelevant to my correction of Drum's statement about "virtually every" intelligence agency in the world coming to the same conclusion. Perhaps to Nathan three is the same as "virtually every," but to those of us who speak English the meaning is not quite the same. Posted by: Stefan on November 27, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINKCheney, read the BBC link. The CIA almost certainly was involved in Bobby's assassination. With JFK, we will never know, although Oswald was a known CIA operative and JFK was hated by the Agency for firing John Foster Dulles and threatening to break the CIA into "a thousand pieces". Just be aware that the CIA will never be part of the solution, but rather part of the problem. Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on November 27, 2006 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINKCheney, read the BBC link. The CIA almost certainly was involved in Bobby's assassination. With JFK, we will never know, although Oswald was a known CIA operative and JFK was hated by the Agency for firing John Foster Dulles and threatening to break the CIA into "a thousand pieces". Just be aware that the CIA will never be part of the solution, but rather part of the problem. Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on November 27, 2006 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINKQuick: How many WMDs were found in Iraq? Posted by: ckelly on November 27, 2006 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINKCheney's Soul: actually, MI6 still stands by their report that Iraq was attempting to procure uranium from Niger. that there were dissenting opinions within their own service is also true. Stefan: those were the three agencies with assets of their own in Iraq. (I assume the FSB and Iranians had some as well but I don't know what their assessment was.) the fact of the matter is, virtually every agency with independent intelligence on Iraq concluded that they had active WMD programs. thus, Kevin's statement was correct. Posted by: Nathan on November 27, 2006 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINKKevin, I haven't read Political Animal for a while, and I guess I'm a bit surprised to see that it's been hijacked by conspiracy theorists and revenge-minded "purists." Whatever happend to rea and your other very intellectual posters? Posted by: DBL on November 27, 2006 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINKHolt is a good guy, and his reasons for opposing the war resolution showed good judgment. He'd probably do fine as chair of the Intelligence Committee. Plus, the fact that his name is "Rush" will keep dittoheads flummoxed for months. Bonus! Posted by: Quaker in a Basement on November 27, 2006 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINKLike the public gives a shit about any of this normal jockeying within the halls of (semi)power. It gives the nuts something to bloviate about (Dems in disarray!) but what perecentage of the population even knows who Pelosi is, let alone how House committees work? If the electorate cared, or knew, about how congress is supposed to operate in a democratic system, well, they wouldn't have permitted BushCo to hijack the nation so easily. But the way this is covered, if at all, by the "mainstream" media is like everything else in politics is addressed these days: all strategy and no substance. Posted by: Kenji on November 27, 2006 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINKA cursory search of the web proves that Cheney is making insupportable allegations about foreign intelligence agencies: www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/usallieswmd.html - 5k Posted by: blog on November 27, 2006 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINKI'm for retribution against those who supported the Iraq War resolution. All of them. The only reason for a Democrat's supporting it was political cowardice. Posted by: David in NY on November 27, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK11 -- see Charles Duelfer report How many were NOT old moldy rusted out sarin shells from 1980? my guess is the WMD went to Syria. And all those stockpiles were moved without our knowledge and under our satellites? What about laboratories? Facilities? Centrifuges? my guess is the WMD went to Syria. Then Bush's war is an even more spectacular FAILURE than I had previously imagined. Posted by: ckelly on November 27, 2006 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINKDBL -- There's lots of us intellectuals here. We just think that anyone with half a brain would not have supported the Iraq war resolution. In fact you didn't even have to be an intellectual to oppose it. Iraq changed everything. It really did. Posted by: David in NY on November 27, 2006 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINKAnd all those stockpiles were moved without our knowledge and under our satellites? What about laboratories? Facilities? Centrifuges? And the scientists? Technicians? Engineers? The guys who cleaned the lab at night, and who ran the cafeteria, and who drove the trucks? Did they all disappear in a puff of implausibility? Posted by: Stefan on November 27, 2006 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINKThen Bush's war is an even more spectacular FAILURE than I had previously imagined. Bush cannot fail. Reality can fail to meet Bush's demands, but that is reality's failure, not Bush's. Posted by: The Simple Truth on November 27, 2006 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINKUh, no, Kevin. Karl Rove will have a field day if Nancy appoints the gutless and gullible who can't think for themselves. Karl Rove will shit a brick if Nancy appoints the brilliant and courageous. Posted by: Chrissy on November 27, 2006 at 5:19 PM | PERMALINKCheney continues to prevaricate. There are so many sources on the web that refute his claims, that he is becoming laughable: www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0601-02.htm - 27k Posted by: blog on November 27, 2006 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINKCheney-The question is, Why are you lying? What is your agenda? Posted by: blog on November 27, 2006 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINKSorry, David, I just double-checked and Pelosi voted "Nay" on H.J.Res. 114 -- I was thinking Daschle -- 81 House Democrats voted "Aye" though. all of them have to go, right? Posted by: Cheney Just say the word -- they're history. (As if anybody ever listens to me. Actually, I think Kevin's hypothesis that someone's, who exactly I don't see, purism on the Iraq vote is behind the push for Holt is silly. I mean, except for me and a few other hotheads on this thread, and perhaps a few million ordinary citizens, nobody seems to give a damn about that vote. But, you know, personally, given a choice between someone who voted for and someone who voted against the war, I'd take the latter; I just don't get that vote much.) Posted by: David in NY on November 27, 2006 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINKNone of the 81 is now, or ever has been, my representative, Cheney. By the way, I don't understand the fantasy by which those who were not on the ground in Iraq say there were weapons of mass destruction there, while, both before and after the hostilities began, those who actually were in Iraq said there weren't. Christ, Saddam couldn't even save his own ass; what makes people think he could save any WMD he might have had? Or would want to? He'd have tried to use them if he had them, not send them to Syria, for heaven's sake. Posted by: David in NY on November 27, 2006 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINKThis is one of Kevin's silliest statements: "There also seems to be more than a whiff of retribution here against any Democrat who supported the war resolution, and that strikes me as pretty counterproductive." I am not aware of any evidence whatsoever for this, and was startled to see that Josh Marshall has picked it up from Kevin. I'd really like to know if Kevin has any factual basis for this conjecture. Saddam (and his sons) could have easily left Iraq, rich and alive, with his ass intact. Don't be too sure. Even the Very Slimy Pinochet is currently (once again) under house arrest, awaiting yet another trial - perhaps Justice will finally find him too. If Justice can find this smarmy hellspawn, it certainly would have eventually found Hussein. Posted by: impeach.remove.convict.punish.justice on November 27, 2006 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINKLook, don't let Cheney keep changing the argument. My proposition, by which I stand, was that given Saddam's lack of ability to save himself or anything else of his, he certainly wasn't sufficiently organized to save any WMD's he might have had. If he could have gotten them to Syria, he could have gotten himself there do and he didn't do either. Furthermore, Hans Blix never found a thing, we gave him every lead we had; there wasn't anything. Our Army found nothing. Only beneath the fevered brow of the false and the real Cheney were there ever WMD's. Posted by: David in NY on November 27, 2006 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK"After all, nearly half the Democratic caucus supported the resolution, and we really don't want to declare every one of these folks persona non grata on all issues related to national security." Of course not. And that retribution stuff is a gross exaggeration. There isn't a withhunt against liberals hawks, but there are serious concerns about the right choice for a very special job, chair of the Intelligence Committee. It should be obvious that this position requires someone with good judgment skills. A representative who mindlessly supported the warmongerers, who didn't question any of the faux evidence, didn't show those skills. More than half of the Dem caucus displayed better judgment on this critical matter, almost every one of them would be better qualified. Posted by: Gray on November 27, 2006 at 6:09 PM | PERMALINKWell, Cheney's posted about 36 comments out of 93 so far. About 38% of the posts. Smells like Jeffery to me. Posted by: kgb on November 27, 2006 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINKI had hoped that the Left would become slightly less insane after the Democratic victory. Fat chance. Posted by: rnc on November 27, 2006 at 6:56 PM | PERMALINKHowever, if Holt made any firm statements questioning the existence of Iraq's WMD programs back in 2002, I haven't been able to find them. He appears to have believed Iraq had an active WMD program as much as anyone... Whats this foolishness about WMD programs? Have we adopted Bush-speak here? A program can be anything. The point is, always has been , and always will be that Iraq actually had no WMD and there was no evidence that they would WMD in the near future. Turns out Holt is both smarter and wiser than Bush, Cheney, or Charlie/Jeffery/"Little Dick" Cheney. Justice dictates that we impeach Bush and Cheney, make them take turns working Charlie's greeter shift at Walmart during weekend furloughs from Gitmo, and bump Holt up to President where he's much more capable than the last moron to hold that office. Unemployed Charlie/Cheney can sell his blood plasma when he's not selling his ass on Sunset Boulevard for quarters. Sure it's constitutionality is questionable, but it's fair. We can take a page from the Republican playbook and find some nutball to develop a theory around it. Consider it the first act of the Unitary Democratic Congressional Majority. Sorry, we don't discuss impeachment plans with ass-whores. Posted by: I think I speak for everyone here... on November 27, 2006 at 7:26 PM | PERMALINKIn any case, it sure seems to me that Nancy Pelosi should make a decision about this ASAP, if only to keep idle fingers like mine and Neil's from chattering about this stuff endlessly. How about if you just talk about something else on your own? Posted by: cmdicely on November 27, 2006 at 7:36 PM | PERMALINKI, for one, hope Ms Grandma Speaker waits until January 2nd to name the House Intelligence Chair, if for no other reason than to watch the sputtering heads keep on babbling about something they know nothing about. Glenn is dead on BTW. There is a rumor floating around locally that Norm Dicks (D-WA) is one of the possibilities (I don`t think so but anything is possible). It appears that this comes from a MSNBC/Newsweek babble. Silvestre or Russ would be fine IMO. I can wait until she is ready to name someone, even if that is after "Opening Day". "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Sha Posted by: daCascadian on November 27, 2006 at 7:37 PM | PERMALINKThe Duelfer report is huge, but heres the beginning of the WP article that reported on the report. Note the article is written by two writers who have a little credibility with regard to their reporting on Iraq. U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on Weapons Report on Iraq Contradicts Bush Administration Claims By Dana Priest and Walter Pincus The 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed Iraq's illicit weapons capability and, for the most part, Saddam Hussein did not try to rebuild it, according to an extensive report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that contradicts nearly every prewar assertion made by top administration officials about Iraq. Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs, said Hussein's ability to produce nuclear weapons had "progressively decayed" since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program." Posted by: little ole jim from red country on November 27, 2006 at 7:37 PM | PERMALINKHow about if you just talk about something else on your own? Ain't it the truth. Let Pelosi do her job. This is still November. Posted by: little ole jim from red country on November 27, 2006 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINK(Someone posting as) Cheney >"Sorry, daCascadian, but Norm Dicks voted..." If you had bothered to actually read what I posted you would know I am not suggesting Dicks. But why should I expect you do something like actually think ? Lotta smoke here & minimal fire. Go Grandma, go ! "...It is those who describe me as an extremist who happen to be the extremists against whom I am warning the electorate." - George Soros Posted by: daCascadian on November 27, 2006 at 8:04 PM | PERMALINKKevin you write: Kevin Drum writes (and Josh apparently supports): "There also seems to be more than a whiff of retribution here against any Democrat who supported the war resolution, and that strikes me as pretty counterproductive." There is a huge difference between supporting the war resolution and enabling the President. Harman supported the war (forgivable) and was a cheerleader for all kinds of other Bush initiatives (NSA spying, etc. . . ). Holding people to account for consistent bad judgement is at the core of representative politics, democracy. Anything less would be like giving Bremer a Medal of Freedom. Posted by: Sean-Paul on November 27, 2006 at 8:19 PM | PERMALINKI posted my feelings about this matter on another blog. Harman has the seniority and experience to chair the committee. She along with 2/3 of the House and 90% of the Senate didn't question the pre-war intelligence. Time to forget bickering and petty differences. Hastings will just bring ethic howls, deserved or not. Harman's AIPAC problems aren't that serious or they would have been headlines before Nov 7th. Posted by: nellieh on November 27, 2006 at 8:29 PM | PERMALINKIgnore the Cheney blether: go back and read Ron Byers post at 2.19pm. It is one of the few actually on the subject K Drum began and is also most cogent. All the b.s is presumably to make anyone serious not bother to read and then to comment. I notice both Byers and Stefan got on with other things more interesting as 'Cheney' got either drunker or his meds wore off. Posted by: maunga on November 27, 2006 at 8:31 PM | PERMALINKAll the b.s is presumably to make anyone serious not bother to read and then to comment. I notice both Byers and Stefan got on with other things more interesting as 'Cheney' got either drunker or his meds wore off. Well, that, plus, unlike Cheney, we actually have lives outside this blog. Posted by: Stefan on November 27, 2006 at 8:49 PM | PERMALINKFor better or worse, she ought to put this to bed. I disagree. She needs to do the right thing. Most likely, supporting Nancy Harmon is the right thing, since her first objection to Harmon in the first place was personal, and Harmon was the ranking member (I think that's the term) by being best qualified. I repeated "first" for emphasis. Posted by: MatthewRMarler on November 27, 2006 at 9:45 PM | PERMALINKI really don't give a rat's ass about Harman's position vis a vis the Gulf War. I'm more concerned about what she's said, done and *not* done in regard to Bush's illegal warrantless wiretapping program. This is an issue that we direly need the intelligence committee to address soon. The fact that she's rubberstamped Bush in every way imaginable on this issue is enough to disqualify her for the chairmanship. Posted by: Jake on November 27, 2006 at 10:07 PM | PERMALINK"There also seems to be more than a whiff of retribution here against any Democrat who supported the war resolution... nearly half the Democratic caucus supported the resolution..." All craven windvanes, not leaders. Hang them out to dry. Posted by: Xofis on November 27, 2006 at 11:00 PM | PERMALINKRush Holt sounds fine. It shouldn't be Harman or Reyes, for reasons that go far beyond one resolution. Posted by: Jimm on November 28, 2006 at 3:18 AM | PERMALINKIn the months before the war, Hans Blix was very clear that he had found no evidence for WMD other than some marginally illegal missiles. The IAEA inspector ElBaradei found "no evidence" of on-going nuclear programs. Duelfer found that "Saddams primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security And "ISG has not found evidence that Saddam Husayn And "The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither --- "Virtually every intelligence agency in the world" apparently doesn't include the The link to ISIS above (http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/usallieswmd.html) is the only actual citation of intelligence agencies on this thread, and it shows neither Russia nor France believed in WMD. I am not privy to the secrets of MOSSAD, but neither is "Cheney." Apparently, just about everything Cheney has written on this thread is false: from his idiotsyncratic interpretation of Blix to his misstatements about Duelfer. I do wish we had better quality trolls. But maybe they were attracted, like flies, to Kevin's unjustifiable attributions to world intelligence agencies. Posted by: mcdruid on November 28, 2006 at 4:43 AM | PERMALINK裸体图片 美女自拍 激情图片 激情小电影 性感图片 性交图片 做爱图片 成人小说 偷拍走光 美眉图片 人体写真 性虐待电影 写真集 激情电影 免费影院 日本av电影 美少女贴图 性感美女图片 美女写真 漂亮妹妹图片 同志电影 性交姿势 美女走光 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 性变态图片 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 激情论坛 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 美腿图片 三级片 成人性爱电影 写真电影 美女阴图 美女乳房 性电影 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装图片 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交电影 做爱电影 性福 人体摄影 裸女图片 免费小电影 免费电影在线 免费影片 最新大片 看免费电影 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 两性写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 美女脱衣电影 裸体美女 手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水图片 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 韩国电影 性知识 最新电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 强奸图片 色情图片 黄色小说 黄色电影 强暴电影 乱伦图片 轮奸电影 迷奸电影 夜曲 为什么相爱的人不能在一起 约定 不得不爱 触电 秋天不回来 求佛 太美丽 发如雪 生日礼物 那年夏天 我想更懂你 手放开 香水有毒 Posted by: 手机图片 on November 28, 2006 at 5:11 AM | PERMALINK"Blix publically complained that the U.S. was NOT sharing all of its intelligence on suspected WMD sites." We couldn't share the stuff we simply made up, of course, 'cause it didn't exist. Posted by: David in NY on November 28, 2006 at 9:41 AM | PERMALINK
ckelly: And all those stockpiles were moved without our knowledge and under our satellites? What about laboratories? Facilities? Centrifuges? "Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites." - GWB in speech to the nation 10/7/2002 yeah...where are they? Posted by: mr. irony on November 28, 2006 at 10:11 AM | PERMALINK
-Rumsfeld on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction 3/30/03 Posted by: don rumsfeld on November 28, 2006 at 10:17 AM | PERMALINKMr. Drum is wrong that the CIA believed Saddam had WMD in 2002. He should read a few of the many books that have been published recently on this subject, especially Ron Suskind's "The One Percent Doctrine". Many if not most CIA analysts studying the question in 2002 had large doubts about Saddam having any WMD program, and there was extremely little CIA support for the only WMD threat that may have justified the war: a nuclear capability. George Tenet may have presented an "official" CIA position to Bush that Saddam was a WMD threat, but there is a tremendous amount of evidence that this was an expedient lie. Of course we don't know for sure because there has never been an official investigation with subpoenas and sworn testimony from all the principals including Bush, Tenet and Cheney, but let's not adopt the official neocon position that everyone, including the CIA thought there were WMD in Iraq in 2002. That is a falsehood. Posted by: Bob C on November 28, 2006 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998 "This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others "Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002 "Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998 "(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998 "Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002 "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002 "What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002 "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002 "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003 "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998 "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 "The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 "I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002 "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002 "Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002 "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002 "I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002 "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002 "(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating Americas response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002 "Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002 "Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002 "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998 "Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002 "Saddams existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraqs enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002 "Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administrations policy towards Iraq, I dont think there can be any question about Saddams conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002 Posted by: Don Meaker on November 28, 2006 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINKJosh says that Hastings is being told later today it is not he who will be Chairman. Josh had a post on the subject yesterday with lots of interesting comment. "bmastiff" at 9.54pm and 10.17 was very cogent on the subject of Harman. Wonderfully, there was no al/jeffery/cheney, an extra bonus. Posted by: maunga on November 28, 2006 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINKDon, It is polite to give the reference to posts you rip off from other places (http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php), even when your post adds nothing substansitive to the conversation. Posted by: mcdruid on November 28, 2006 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINKMr. Meaker's comments evidently aimed at mine, are irrelevant. Most everyone in 2002 THOUGHT they KNEW for sure that Saddam had WMD because he was a bad guy and at one time he did have such weapons. But the intelligence analysts didn't know that for sure, and none of the people quoted by Mr. Meaker are intelligence analysts--they are politicians. The biggest lesson that the Iraq debacle teaches is that we cannot believe politicians--we need hard facts. And in 2002, Mr. Meaker, the facts were unknown. Mr. Bush's crime is that he insisted the facts were known and went to war before the facts could be ascertained by Mr. Blix' weapons inspection team. This is all old news Mr. Meaker. Posted by: Bob C on November 28, 2006 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINKOrder Generic drugs Buy Generic drugs without prescription You could get the following medicines at cheapest prices: attract women pheromones Prostate medication Prostate medication Prostate health Prostate health Prostate supplement Prostate supplement Prostate medicine Prostate medicine Prostate vitamin Prostate vitamin Natural sleeping aid Natural sleeping aid Natural pain relief Natural pain relief Colon cleansing Colon cleansing Colon cleanse Colon cleanse Colon cleanser Colon cleanser Natural colon cleansing Natural colon cleansing Natural colon cleanse Natural colon cleanse Natural colon cleanser Natural colon cleanser Super colon cleanse Super colon cleanse Best colon cleanser Best colon cleanser Colon cleansing treatment Colon cleansing treatment Colon cleansing recipe Colon cleansing recipe Natural Colon cleanse recipe Natural Colon cleanse recipe Ultimate Colon cleanse Ultimate Colon cleanse Ultimate Colon cleanse Ultimate Colon cleanse Prevent Hair Loss Prevent Hair loss Irritable Bowel Syndrome Irritable Bowel Syndrome Irritable Bowel Irritable Bowel Bowel Syndrome Bowel Syndrome Bowel Cleansing Bowel Cleansing Irritable Bowel Syndrone Irritable Bowel Syndrone Bowel Cleanse Bowel Cleanse Anti Wrinkle Treatment Anti Wrinkle Treatment Anti Wrinkle Cream Anti Wrinkle Cream Best Anti Wrinkle Cream Best Anti Wrinkle Cream Premature Ejaculation Cure Premature Ejaculation Cure Premature Ejaculation Premature Ejaculation Stop Premature Ejaculation Stop Premature Ejaculation Prevent Premature Ejaculation Prevent Premature Ejaculation End Premature Ejaculation End Premature Ejaculation Premature Ejaculation Pills Premature Ejaculation Pills Preventing Premature Ejaculation Preventing Premature Ejaculation Premature Ejaculation Solution Premature Ejaculation Solution Premature Ejaculation Remedy Premature Ejaculation Remedy Premature Ejackulation Premature Ejackulation Premature Ejactulation Premature Ejactulation Premature Ejeculation Premature Ejeculation Natural menopause relief Natural menopause relief Menopause treatment Menopause treatment Menopause natural remedy Menopause natural remedy Herb Menopause Herb Menopause Menopause relief Menopause relief Herbal menopause remedy Herbal menopause remedy Menopause remedy Menopause remedy Stretch mark cream Stretch mark cream Stretch mark removal Stretch mark removal Stretch mark treatment Stretch mark treatment Remove Stretch marks Remove Stretch marks Stretch mark remover Stretch mark remover Rid of Stretch marks Rid of Stretch marks How to get Rid of Stretch marks How to get Rid of Stretch marks Stretch mark prevention Stretch mark prevention Cellulite treatment Cellulite treatment Cellulite cream Cellulite cream How to get rid of cellulite How to get rid of cellulite Cellulite removal Cellulite removal Anti Cellulite Anti Cellulite Cellulite reduction Cellulite reduction Rid of cellulite Rid of cellulite Reduce cellulite Reduce cellulite Anti Cellulite Cream Anti Cellulite Cream Best Cellulite Cream Best Cellulite Cream Remove cellulite Remove cellulite Cellulite remedy Cellulite remedy Natural Cellulite remedy Natural Cellulite remedy Cellulite reducer Cellulite reducer Eliminate Cellulite Eliminate Cellulite Colon cleansing Colon cleansing Colon cleanse Colon cleanse Colon cleanser Colon cleanser Natural colon cleansing Natural colon cleansing Natural colon cleanse Natural colon cleanse Natural colon cleanser Natural colon cleanser Super colon cleanse Super colon cleanse Best colon cleanser Best colon cleanser Colon cleansing treatment Colon cleansing treatment Colon cleansing recipe Colon cleansing recipe Natural Colon cleanse recipe Natural Colon cleanse recipe Ultimate Colon cleanse Ultimate Colon cleanse Ultimate Colon cleanser Ultimate Colon cleanser Posted by: top on November 30, 2006 at 3:31 AM | PERMALINK 
March 2010
February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
