 |
 |
   Read the story and see the video discussion by the authors about why creeping consolidation is crushing American livelihoods.
 Career colleges and the paper of record face off.
 A forensic tool renowned for exonerating the innocent may actually be putting them in prison.
|
   |
|
|
December 13, 2006
By: "ONE LAST PUSH" UPDATE....More troops to Iraq? That's what the LA Times reports:
According to the Washington Post, that's exactly what the military brass is planning to ask for:
George Bush has always said that he gives his generals everything they ask for. At the same time, he's shown himself consistently unwilling to expand the military in any way that would be truly unpopular. It looks like that particular rubber is about to hit the road. —Kevin Drum 4:51 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (57)Comments
Massive callups of reservist will be extraordinarily unpopular. He'd be ensuring minority status for the GOP for a generation. Nice legacy you got there George. Posted by: pinson on December 13, 2006 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINKOh goody our troops are going to bleed so the President can save face with the Saudis. Explain to me again why we should ever elect Republicans to anything, ever again. Also why shouldn't we try every GD neocon for treason. Why we are at it why shouldn't we expect every administration official to sign up to go house to house in Baghdad looking for the bad guys de jour. Posted by: Ron Byers on December 13, 2006 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINKpinson >"...He'd be ensuring minority status for the GOP for a generation..." We can certainly hope so. "Republicans want to save face. Democrats want to save lives." - egregious-firedoglake.com Posted by: daCascadian on December 13, 2006 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINKGreat, so Bush is finally willing to get those troops that General Shinseki was asking for? Talk about the barn door school of foreign policy. On a more sobering note, I was reading the transcripts to a briefing that Reps Kucinich and Paul had on Monday about the Lancet Study, they spent a lot of time looking at the study's methodology, and I found the briefing quite informative. But the obvious question is, if we are responsible for the deaths of 650,000 Iraqi civilians, what can we do to make things right? Personally I'm more inclined at this stage to say get our troops out of there, but even General Zinni, who basically commisioned the Desert Crossings Report and was very vocal about Iraq being the wrong war at the wrong time before we went, even Zinni is saying removing troops now will only make things worse. It seems at this point that the measure of "success" in Iraq is anything that will reduce the civilian death toll, though that's much easier to say than do. Posted by: cyntax on December 13, 2006 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINKHe'd be ensuring minority status for the GOP for a generation That's what we thought after Nixon. Unfortunately it only lasted 4 years. Posted by: chuck on December 13, 2006 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINKWell, let's see if the "War President" is willing to give the military what it asks for. Now that he's a lame duck, perhaps he'll get his courage up. I take it as a given that he's "foolish" enough to do it. Posted by: little ole jim from red country on December 13, 2006 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINKThe size of the troop increase the Pentagon will recommend is unclear. One officer suggested an increase of about 40,000 forces would be required, but other officials said such a number was unrealistic. It's quite unclear from the news reports whether these suggested increases mean 40,000 combat troops or 40,000 total. Traditionally, only about 10% (very roughly) of forces in an army were actually front-line fighters, that is, the guys who shoot and are shot at. For every one man in the field there are about 9 to 10 headquaters personnel, pilots, engineers, quartermaster, cooks, drivers, MPs, etc. etc. Even if we account for the fact that the Bush regime's privatization mania may have outsourced many of these functions to non-military personnel, the ratio would still not be below 5 to 1, so if we actually wanted 40,000 combat troops we'd probably need about 200,000 more soldiers total. Conversely, 40,000 troops total would only get us about 8,000 front-line fighters , which isn't really all that much. Posted by: Stefan on December 13, 2006 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINKI say let them try the "one last push" strategy. It undercuts McCain's incipient Dolschtosslegende and makes it that much easier for Democrats to coalesce around withdrawl in '08. Of course -- I'd like the dying to start to abate *now* rather than later. But if it ain't gonna happen -- then all this move assures is that Bush's fingerprints are on what happens in Iraq more firmly than ever. I'd prefer the Democrats to take some battering with a policy they had their hands in -- if that policy was correct for the country. But if Bush is gonna remain obstinate ... Bob Posted by: rmck1 on December 13, 2006 at 5:51 PM | PERMALINKDoubling down with zero chance of success is not a winning strategy. I wouldn't mind but he's playing our bankroll. Posted by: BroD on December 13, 2006 at 5:56 PM | PERMALINKThis is Bush we are talking about. He doesn't actually have to send the troops. It's much like Katrina aid, you just say the word and you're done. He will make a grand announcement of 40, 50 or 60,000 more troops. The loyal will cheer, those treasonous and terrorist-loving enough to ask where they will come from will be smeared. Ultimately, an extra company of mechanics will be dispatched and arrive three weeks before the 2008 election without any tools. Posted by: celcus on December 13, 2006 at 5:57 PM | PERMALINKAnd when this doesn't work, we know who to blame: The Dems and the Liberal Media! Posted by: Al's Mommy on December 13, 2006 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINKWe could send another 200,000 troops to Iraq and it wouldn't solve the problem. The Sunnis and Shiites have been killing each other for centuries. If we brought in more troops, they may stop for the amount of time the troops were there, but right when we left they would start again. We could stay in Iraq for 10 years of 30 years and it would not make a difference. Because of this, we need to start withdraw...now. Posted by: brian on December 13, 2006 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINKAnd the l01st Fighting Keyboarders comprise how many? And they are good for what? Hmmm, I did not know that chickenhawk was a MOS. Special second eight training, eh? Posted by: thethirdPaul on December 13, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINKA better solution would be for each GOP voter to adopt an Iraqi family, which would then come to the US to live with their new hosts. This would allow us a roughly 1-to-1 ratio of us to them, so we could really keep an eye on the troublemakers, it would empty Iraq, which must be an ecologically sound thing, and it would allow the 101st Keyboarders to really contribute to the "war" they love so much. It's the Trifecta! Posted by: craigie on December 13, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINKSo, it's "stay the course plus 30%?" Yeah, that's definitely going to change the course of the war: "Well, we're doing pretty much the same thing that hasn't been working, but now we're doing it with THIRTY PERCENT MORE PEOPLE!" They can call it the 30 percent solution! Posted by: anonymous on December 13, 2006 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINKMore troops in Iraq means more drestruction to the US military while they make a fighting retreat to Kuwait. Although the soldiers' only crime was obeying Bush and allowing themselves to be deployed to Iraq, they deserve a little exoneration, their demise will be the best thing for the rest of the world if it prevents our invading other countries in future. I would prefer the military be abolished, but if Bush destroys it, then the majority who voted for him in 2004 must take the responsiblity. Posted by: Hostile on December 13, 2006 at 6:21 PM | PERMALINKGood idea, craigie, and maybe King Abdullah can send CARE packages to our middle class. Posted by: thethirdPaul on December 13, 2006 at 6:22 PM | PERMALINKGeorge Bush has always said that he gives his generals everything they ask for. Only as long as they obey the orders from George W. Bush as to what they are allowed to ask for, though. I say let them try the "one last push" strategy. The problem with that is that they've tried it, repeatedly. There is always one more last push. It undercuts McCain's incipient Dolschtosslegende I'm not sure that's really true, I mean, the Vietnam Dolschtosslegende was (and is) a powerful myth, and the supporters of that war got away with a lot more escalation of failure than is envisioned here. I don't really think giving Bush another chance (or another series of chances for the rest of his term) to “escalate and fail” is going to substantially and meaningfully undercut the idea of a stab in the back with anyone who is prone to believe it in the first place. OTOH, I do think it will get a lot more people (Americans and otherwise) killed. Posted by: cmdicely on December 13, 2006 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINKOh, Thank You, Thank You, for exonerating our troops, Hostile. How utterly "decent" of you.
cmdicely: Here's what I mean more specifically: If Bush, let's say, accepts many of the ISG's recommendations and, at the very least, doesn't authorize an increase in troops in the short term (rejecting the "one last push"), we know that McCain is going to make hay with it. He can then credibly argue in the GOP primary that he was the only one who advocated really bearing down to "win" the conflict. While this meme has, granted, a minimum play among voters at large -- I suspect it has a powerful play within the GOP base. Witness the ISG-trashing that's already taken place by the usual suspects. Also throw in negotiating with Iran and Syria -- if Bush does that while McCain holds firm against it, there is the loud chorus of voices right now, for instance, condeming the Holocaust denial conference in Terhan which features such luminaries as David Duke ... Now ... sensible people know that more troops isn't going to make an anthill's bit of difference for all the reasons discussed in this thread. But if it isn't *tried*, then a *legend* can grow around it. If we start to pull out with a decidedly less-than-optimal outcome for the US and Iraq by '08, you're going to have McCain standing there on the stump saying "toldja so." But by allowing Bush to try -- and having it fail -- it will be that much harder for McCain or any other Republican to argue two years ago that we "lost" Iraq because we didn't have the "resove as a nation to see it through until the end." The best way to crush those memes is to demonstrate their falsity in the real world before they grow in to legends that are by their nature unfalsifiable. Bob Posted by: rmck1 on December 13, 2006 at 8:03 PM | PERMALINKDelusional thinking persists as moderate voices continue to be dismissed. Submerged for a third year, it is clear this administration will engage perpetually in violent hostility, given their irrational compulsion to be "right," to have "success." Bob, The best way to crush those memes is to demonstrate their falsity in the real world before they grow in to legends that are by their nature unfalsifiable. But what stops McCain, et. al., from saying "hey that extra 30,000 troops made things a little better. We need another 30,000 troop to make it more better." and another 30,000, and another... At what point does "demonstrate their falsity" actually occur? Posted by: Edo on December 13, 2006 at 8:19 PM | PERMALINK"Submerged for a third year" No wonder, they have drowned in their sea of hubris. Posted by: thethirdPaul on December 13, 2006 at 8:22 PM | PERMALINKThe best way to crush those memes is to demonstrate their falsity in the real world before they grow in to legends that are by their nature unfalsifiable. Well...to a degree. That only works with those who pay any attention to reality, and as we've seen lately there's about a hard third of this country which is deaf to all logic or reason. Most of what these winguts spout has had its falsity demonstrated in the real world time and time again, but that hasn't stopped them. Posted by: Stefan on December 13, 2006 at 8:29 PM | PERMALINKrmck1: But by allowing Bush to try -- and having it fail -- it will be that much harder for McCain or any other Republican to argue two years ago that we "lost" Iraq because we didn't have the "resove as a nation to see it through until the end."
2007 promises to be as exciting here at Political Animal as 2005 and 2006 have been. Posted by: MatthewRMarler on December 13, 2006 at 8:35 PM | PERMALINKOh, the pathos of young Jonah telling his mother, Lucien, that he has been called by his Roi to go off and fight the infidels. With a tear in her eye, she tells him to fight bravely for "The Cause". But, he asks what will he use for a weapon. She says that a pen is mightier then a sword. But, he replies that he uses a key board. She then suggests that, as a last resort, he could throw it at them. He cries, "But what if that does not work". At last, We have a WMD. Posted by: stupid git on December 13, 2006 at 8:41 PM | PERMALINKAh, Kevin. The presumptuousness is staggering. So now you know more than all the generals of the American Army? The generals think it best to mobilize the national guard, but you, Kevin, in all your infinite, scaredy-cat liberal wisdom, think we should cut and run. Get ready to get CREAMED in'08, motherf*er! Posted by: egbert on December 13, 2006 at 8:54 PM | PERMALINKLook at the sheer brutality. In Falluja, "the city's main hospital was selected as the first target, the NY Times reported, "because the US military believed it was the source of rumors about heavy casualties." An AP reporter described US helicopters killing a family of five trying to ford a river to safety. "There were American snipers on top of the hospital shooting everyone, said Burhan Fasa'am, a photographer, "with no medical supplies, people died from their wounds. Everyone in the street was a target...Falluja proved to be yet another of the war's phantom turning points. Violent resistance spread to other cities... "As the war in Iraq claims more lives, we need to ensure that this atrocity (of 2004), so easily erased from public memory--is recognized as the barbarism of nations that call themselves civilized." Mike Marqusee, co-founder of Iraq Occupation Focus There are things that are standign in the way of the Generals grand scheme. Who is going to lead these Reservists into battle? The Army Reserves is short 11,000 Lieutenants and Captains. That's a big fucking deal. 11,000 O-1's 2's and 3's is a huge deficit. Reserve officers are declining second and third commissions because they have lost faith in the mission. I personally know four nurses and two lab scientists who have been in 15 years or more and all of them have done two tours in Iraq already and are resigning commissions when tours end, rather than stay in five more and retire. I maintain that you are not talking to the people I am talking to, or you might hesitate before you make such statements. Anyway, I am more inclined to listen to the officers in uniform and the reservists who have been there than you, orwell. Posted by: Global Citizen on December 13, 2006 at 9:07 PM | PERMALINKegbert has unmasked hostility, and needs to be put on ignoral. There is a right wing blog somewhere waiting for his divisive ugliness. I bet he really is a minion of Karl Rove, probably on the payroll This is friggin' insane! More troops to do what? We plan to take on the Mahti Army head on? Expect a bloodbath like we haven't seen since Iwo Jima. They are 60,000 strong, crazed and well-armed. There will be a river of blood in the streets of Baghdad. This asshole, Bush, is definitely going against the will of the overwhelming majority of the American people and I hope they he pays dearly for this. He has lost his moorings. Impeachment and imprisonment is the only way to get rid of this homicidal maniac. Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on December 13, 2006 at 9:55 PM | PERMALINKegbert is parody too - but we are pretty sure that it is unintentional. Which is more sad than funny. Posted by: Global Citizen on December 13, 2006 at 10:05 PM | PERMALINKHow can they get away with "one big push" without reminding people of World War I, where "Big Push" was a euphemism for throwing tens of thousands of men across noman's land to be slaughtered by machine guns and mines. An almost perfectly horrible and senseless act is made to seem like a football game. If the Military gets a inspiring sidelines peptalk, if the front line can open up a hole down the middle, then the half-back can squirt through and score the winning touchdown to save Iraq, or smash the German lines. Posted by: Boronx on December 13, 2006 at 10:10 PM | PERMALINKThe Conservative Deflator: Impeachment and imprisonment is the only way to get rid of this homicidal maniac. Quick reminder: all the majority Dems of the 110th Congress have to do is pass a resolution prohibiting the spending of money in Iraq. Impeaching GWB will just prolong the war because it takes so long and requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate. Posted by: MatthewRMarler on December 13, 2006 at 10:42 PM | PERMALINKGlobal Citizen, Check Oregonian.com today - The Letters to the Editor - Friday, Senator Gordon Smith referred to our engagement in Iraq as perhaps criminal. However, read the letter from parents of an Oregon soldier killed in action in Iraq earlier - When the parents met with Smith, he made a comment that he hoped that they would come to realize that Bush had been correct. Another very late to the party - actually the other letter is interesting, but the first is especially poignant. Posted by: thethirdPaul on December 13, 2006 at 10:49 PM | PERMALINKApproval ratings are now fixed. Rove's methods are despicable, but his results are solid. 32% of Americans are simply unable to disapprove of anything this President does. Posted by: wishIwuz2 on December 13, 2006 at 11:14 PM | PERMALINKThat rubber will REALLY hit the road with Democrats now having a majority of governorships. And, while 2006 was a quiet Atlantic hurricane season (but certainly anything but that in the Pacific), what if 2005 replays itself in 2007 in the Gulf of Mexico? And, and, and, what about that bright idea of earlier this year of using the Guard from border states to patrol the border? If the Army's already stretched too thin, isn't the Guard about to follow if this happens? Posted by: Socratic Gadfly on December 14, 2006 at 12:23 AM | PERMALINKBob, in addition to opposing the war in general before it was ever launched, with a sister in the Guard, I strongly oppose a full call-up. Of course, I begged her to find any way possible to get out if Bush got re-elected. Posted by: Socratic Gadfly on December 14, 2006 at 12:28 AM | PERMALINKAnd, and, and, what about that bright idea of earlier this year of using the Guard from border states to patrol the border? Not just from border states. The Kansas Guard build more fence than existed whent hey got there. And the Guard is overextended, and it has been overused and abused. I am deeply concerned about the future viability of that vital branch of the service that protects us in times of natural or man-made disasters. WaPost contradicts itself: The Post, in another article dated for Dec. 14, says the brass does NOT favor adding a bunch of troops. Posted by: Socratic Gadfly on December 14, 2006 at 12:43 AM | PERMALINK"...you, Kevin, in all your infinite, scaredy-cat liberal wisdom, think we should cut and run. Get ready to get CREAMED in'08, motherf*er!" Yeah, he's wise like 70% of the country. You got creamed last month, shit-breath, and it certainly didn't teach YOU and your chickenhawk, send-someone-else's-children a damn thing. So go ahead and beat your chest like an impotent ape. Hey, Paul. I saw on the Weather Channel that you guys (see how I sidestep the 'you all' controversy?) were in for some serious Pacific storm action. 60mph winds. Hope you're battened down. The number and magnitude of storms in the Pacific this year have been amazing. One devastating typhoon after another. Nine - nine! - have hit China alone. Although the Gulf was quiet this year, no one down here believes that it was anything more than a fluke of luck. Posted by: MsNThrope on December 14, 2006 at 7:59 AM | PERMALINKThe best way to crush those memes is to demonstrate their falsity in the real world before they grow in to legends that are by their nature unfalsifiable. Bob, I agree with your analysis, and I'd love to see Saint McCain's bluff called -- we don't have the troops, and it wouldn't make any difference if they went, and I expect he knows it. But, alas, while I agree that the failure of the send-more-troops so-called strategy would cause the media to tend to have the possibility of maybe pointing out that McCain's self-righteous hawkishness didn't actually work -- naaaaah! -- there are no myths that are falsifiable to Bush Cultists like the Powerline crowd. Posted by: Gregory on December 14, 2006 at 8:35 AM | PERMALINKStefan wrote: Most of what these winguts spout has had its falsity demonstrated in the real world time and time again, but that hasn't stopped them. Hell, it doesn't stop them from spouting it over and over in these very threads. Posted by: Gregory on December 14, 2006 at 8:36 AM | PERMALINKQuick reminder Cutting off funding for Iraq also has the potential to hang US soldiers out to dry in Iraq. Republicans may not give a rat's ass about the troops execpt as window dressing, but Democrats know their worth. Not coincidentally, cutting off funding also plays right into the Dolschtosslegende myth that dishonest conservatives -- but I repeat myself -- have been honing for more than a year. Not coincidentally, cutting off funding -- as opposed to impeachment -- also allows Bush to escape the consecuqnces of his fuck-uppery. I know, I know, Marler -- you want Republicans like yourself to escape their responsibility for this debacle. How typical -- just not respectable. Posted by: Gregory on December 14, 2006 at 8:44 AM | PERMALINKGWB waiting until after Christmas-he's going to do something deeply unpopular, can't upset the Christmas shopping season by mobilizing the entire National Guard for deployment in 2007. He's on a mission from above. The best thing out of this is McCain will have to see the consequences of his babble. Posted by: Nea on December 14, 2006 at 8:49 AM | PERMALINKI would have no problem with mobilizing the Guard as long as Shrub takes his place in one of the TANG jets and leads the squadron to "Glory" over the skies of Iraq. However, I would request that he only flys in the left and/or only seat of any jet. Perhaps he could do some belly rolls over Tehran in order to "inspect" their nuclear facilities. Perhaps he could emulate Alexander the Great by leading his forces into Baghdad. Of course, Alexander died there; oh well just a pipe dream. Posted by: thethirdPaul on December 14, 2006 at 9:41 AM | PERMALINKAt what point does "demonstrate their falsity" actually occur? Vietnam from the beginning of the "advisory campaign" to the US Withdrawal lasted from 1962 to 1973, with a peak troop strength in Vietnam of 543,482 troops, and the Dolschtosslegende was powerful there. If anything, the continuous escalation supported by Democrats and Republicans validated that meme rather than disarming it, because across the (partisa) political spectrum people were saying to win we just had to commit adequate resources. What we need to do is avoid repeating that mistake, recognize reality, and not participate in validating the Right's Dolschtosslegende by collaborating in their effort to sell the idea that there is a road to success that runs through escalation. After much review I have finally formulated my views on Iraq into what I call the Kenny Rogers analysis of the Iraq Fiasco: You got to know when to hold'em and know when to fold'em. When it comes to Iraq, much as many of us hate to admit it, we hold a definite folding hand. Sure it means losing this pot, but minimizing your losses is what winning poker is all about. You got to know when to fold'em. And then there's the Kenny Rogers Corollary: you got to know when to walk away and know when to run. Time to cut and RUN, boys. Posted by: The Fool on December 14, 2006 at 11:40 AM | PERMALINKThe JCS have apparently gone the other way, so reports today's Washington Post. It appears to be an interesting leak effort. There are clearly two factions, at least. One has one newspaper. One has the other. But, regarding this post, you link two articles that should not be considered as agreeing. The LA Times reports a major increase in forces. The Washington Post reports on two different things: more access to Guard/Reserves and a bigger budget footprint. Yes, more access to those non-active forces would be needed for a large push. But, more access shall be needed to maintain the present force in country. As for the larger budget footprint, it seems like a sensible idea to ask that the forces in uniform are on the books in a more normal manner. The increase proposed to the Marines and Army are small, totalling 7500 troops or so. Posted by: Chris on December 14, 2006 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINKHostile wrote: "More troops in Iraq means more destruction to the US military while they make a fighting retreat to Kuwait." This is not a very realistic analysis of the situation or the comparative capabilities of the likely belligerents at the time of a future US withdrawal. A fighting retreat is only required in the face of a militarily competent (or at least powerful) enemy. We face no such enemy in Iraq. A planned withdrawal will be easy enough, because any countering activity will require the enemy to mass and move. Since there aren't that many of them to begin with, any concerted movement on the part of the enemy to attack us will only result in large enemy losses, without actually hindering our movement significantly. Posted by: Trashhauler on December 14, 2006 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINKGlobal Citizen wrote (regarding the Guard): Not just from border states. The Kansas Guard build more fence than existed whent hey got there. And the Guard is overextended, and it has been overused and abused. I am deeply concerned about the future viability of that vital branch of the service that protects us in times of natural or man-made disasters." For the most part, the civil response function of the Guard is under Title 32, making it a state responsibility. The bulk of Guard funding is from the federal government under Title 10. The situation is almost a Catch 22. There is no legislative rationale for the federal government to fund the Guard unless it is in support of a federal wartime mission. The Guard's capability during a national disaster is simply a happy byproduct. Unless the states wish to fund it. Can't they send the A-Team. You know, Mr. T, and those guys. They'd kick ass. Yeah. Posted by: CT on December 14, 2006 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINKFor the most part, the civil response function of the Guard is under Title 32, making it a state responsibility. I'm not sure where you get the idea that Title 32 activities are solely the responsibility, financially or otherwise, of the state. Title 32 itself does not support that conclusion. There is no legislative rationale for the federal government to fund the Guard unless it is in support of a federal wartime mission. I'd disagree quite strongly to this: there is both express Article I power of Congress (with several different clauses of Section 8 each independently adequate to authorize it), and a legislative rationale stemming from the impact that inadequate capacity in one state can have on the national economy and the interests of other states in the event of a disaster, for Congress to spend money to ensure the capacity of the National Guard to deal with events that would not require the federalization of the guard. Posted by: cmdicely on December 14, 2006 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINKIt's time to get out of Iraq, start addressing the Millennium Development Goals and electing diplomatic leaders. According to the Borgen Project, it's time to stop undermining the world's poor. Posted by: flagrl118 on December 14, 2006 at 7:14 PM | PERMALINKOrder Generic drugs Buy Generic drugs without prescription You could get the following medicines at cheapest prices: attract women pheromones
attract women pheromones 
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 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
