A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
November 17, 2005Just Something To Keep In MindAs you all know by now, Rep. Jack Murtha has spoken out today, calling for what amounts to a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq. Murtha's a patriot, and his centrist and hawkish credentials are well-established, even by those who basically accused him of cooperating with our enemies. As a pro-war Dem, and a proud American, I respect Murtha's service, and his character is above reproach. I do think he's wrong, though. This has all been said before, but it is important to remember that our enemies are hoping for us to cut-and-run, and hoping to waeken us, not militarily, but by weaking our resolve. The troops draw strength from the fact that we support them. It's fine to criticize the execution of the war-Bush has certainly made huge mistakes. We need to keep in mind though that the Iraqis are counting on us not to leave them in the lurch. We don't want all of our brave soldiers to have died in vain. If we really do adopt a premature withdrawl, the costs will be too high. Posted by Rafique Tucker at November 17, 2005 08:55 PMComments
Same song, different day. Personally I wonder why this is news at all, other than the obvious "anything for noise and ratings" media angle. That "most hawkish Democrat" Murtha has been calling for us to withdraw for well over a year. He started at least as far back as May 6, 2004. Bet you won't find that little detail in any of today's stories on Murtha's press conference, though it's bound to show up in a few tomorrow. I respect his service, but it grants him neither privileges nor immunities in the public forum. Posted by: Tully at November 17, 2005 09:33 PMYep, not a single one of the wire stories mentions that little itty bitty detail. And they wonder why I don't trust the MSM. Posted by: Tully at November 17, 2005 09:42 PMGreat post. I agree with Hillary and McCain... We should be increasing troop levels, not decreasing them. Posted by: Mathew at November 17, 2005 10:00 PMTully, That's a great catch. It's not being reported in a single one of the articles that I've read-- NewsHour made it seem like it was this huge, new twist. Unbelievable. Rather than this being a dramatic break from within the "coalition," this is really just another case of "Dog Bites Man." Posted by: Bobby at November 18, 2005 12:09 AMActually, our enemies are hoping we stay caught in the trap we so blindly stepped into for a very long time. As Richard Clarke presciently predicted from the outset, Al Qaeda has benefitted immensely from our Iraqi misadventure, a good fortune that would be hard to imagine after they were brought into such complete disrepute and were on the run in the months after 9/11. We are doing more harm than good in Iraq not only for our own interests, but also for Iraq's. Unfortunately, our policy has left us with no good choices, but we still have to choose the less bad of them. Murtha is basically right, and I just hope it doesn't take another 2,000 GI and 20,000 Iraqi deaths for it to sink in. What a terrible, terrible waste. Posted by: Ben at November 18, 2005 12:37 AMYes, in one respect al-qaeda is drawing strength from our presence in Iraq, but keep in mind that al-qaeda attacked countries that weren't involved in Iraq as well (Russia, etc). One thing is for sure, if we leave the region without a sufficient bulwark against terror, then they get a stronghold in Iraq, and everyone loses, except al-qaeda. Posted by: Rafique Tucker at November 18, 2005 01:24 AMAl Qaeda has benefitted immensely from our Iraqi misadventure, a good fortune that would be hard to imagine after they were brought into such complete disrepute and were on the run in the months after 9/11. I see little evidence in the Arab press that AQ has benefited from the Iraq war. The Arab street cheered when the towers came down. I saw no indication Bin Laden lost favor as he was driven from Afghanistan. In fact just the opposite. Bin Laden and his tactics have become discredited among the mideast populace only since we invaded Iraq. It's not that they see us as liberators, but rather realize that AQ's extremism is not going to do good for the common man. Had we done nothing after 9/11/Afghanistan do you imagine AQ would be thought contrary to the good of the mideast by mideasterners? Do you remember the Russians? The terrible waste would have been to stop in Afghanistan. I've said it before elsewhere. I personally think Bin Laden is doing the most good for the American cause exactly where he is. It would be bad luck if we captured or killed him. Posted by: Dennis at November 18, 2005 01:45 AMBen, Al Qaeda has benefitted immensely from our Iraqi misadventure, a good fortune that would be hard to imagine after they were brought into such complete disrepute and were on the run in the months after 9/11. We are doing more harm than good in Iraq not only for our own interests, but also for Iraq's. Care to explain the evidence upon which this statement is founded? I'd like to know what metrics you're using to make this assessment. I'm not saying you're wrong (although, in fairness, I believe you're wrong), but I'd least like to know what you're basing this off of so that I can understand it. Thanks! Dennis, The terrible waste would have been to stop in Afghanistan. I agree completely. Posted by: Bobby at November 18, 2005 02:12 AMBut Tully, the article you linked said "We either have to mobilize or we have to get out," Murtha said, adding that he supported increasing U.S. troop strength rather than pulling out. And so the headline 'We cannot prevail in this war' ought to be amended "with our current strategy." So while it does show that Murtha's break is more of a natural outcome of the administration's not significantly changing it's strategy than a sharp break, isn't it misleading to say "Murtha has been calling for us to withdraw for well over a year" as you did. It seems that his frustration got to such a level that he switched sides from more troops to withdrawal. Wouldn't it be appropriate to refer to him as a hawk (or at least a former hawk), if, in the past, he supported increasing troop levels? While the media is leaving out crucial background info and is hyping it, it seems your initial statement went a little too far. No? Don't get me wrong; I'm a stay-the-course kind of guy (within reason). I was just wondering. Posted by: Adam at November 18, 2005 09:40 AMAdam, what it suggests to me is that Murtha has been upset from Day One that he's not in charge, and the admin is not doing what he wants them to do. "My way or the highway--more troops or run away." Which was exactly what the "Cut and Run Democrats" (CARDs[tm]) were saying back then. And now he's switched on cue to what the CARDs[tm] have decided is the New Party Line. No? So that's a very relevant detail when he's being touted as a recent "pro-war hawk to CARD[tm]" convert by the media and Dems, don't you think? It speaks directly to media bias and cheerleading. He is not at all what he's being represented as. He's no different from any of the other CARDs[tm] who voted for war powers and now want to disclaim/amend/excuse their previous votes. Well, actually he is a little bit different. I haven't heard him promoting revisionist history, just expressing his policy opinion. I'll give him that much. But he may have said much I missed. Posted by: Tully at November 18, 2005 10:35 AMI don't understand why Ben has to provide "metrics" to support his opinion. What kind of metrics is he supposed to have? I'm sure he is basing his opinion on stuff he has read just like (I assume) the rest of us. How come if you are anti-war you have to provide some supra-level of evidence to justify your position, but if you are pro-war all you have to do is talk about how withdrawal would embolden Al Quaeda? Where is the evidence for that? It seems to me there is a double standard where where people opposed to the war are assumed a priori to be wrong. I respect that people have differences on this and that people that favor the war have legitimate reasons. But I wish you would acknowledge that people opposing the war do too. And, just for the record, I opposed the war but am really torn over whether we should announce a withdrawal date. Posted by: Marc at November 18, 2005 10:55 AMMarc, I'm not asking for pro-war or anti-war metrics. At all. Ben said "Al Qaeda has benefitted immensely from our Iraqi misadventure, a good fortune that would be hard to imagine after they were brought into such complete disrepute and were on the run in the months after 9/11." I'm asking for what evidence he's using to base that decision-- not whether we'll succeed or fail in Iraq, not whether we thought the administration misled us about WMDs, and not whether or not withdrawing prematurely would embolden Al Qaeda. If he has proof or evidence that demonstrates how Al Qaeda has benefitted "immensely" from OIF, I'm interested in knowing what that is. If it's just something as simple as his general impression of what he reads in the news or if it's anecdotally arranged-- like Dennis did to contest him-- that's fine, but I'm just wondering if he's thought through what he's saying or if he's merely re-stating something he's hearing that has probably never been grounded in reality. Posted by: Bobby at November 18, 2005 11:29 AMAn Iraqi weighs in on Murtha and the current situation. I agree with Mr. Murtha that some people in Iraq would benefit from an immediate withdrawal but that would be al-Qaeda and there are also countries in the region that would benefit from that too but these would be Syria and Iran! I insert that because what seems to keep getting lost in the political quarrels is the likely result of the policy urged on the people most directly involved--the Iraqis. So their opinion bear more weight. As does the opinions of those "boots on the ground" that the CARDs claim to be "supporting." I've communicated with some, and they're not happy with the CARDs. I personally believe that we will see some minor troop drawdowns as a matter of course in the very near future, for the simple reason that elements of the Iraqi military are now completely capable of handling things themselves. As more and more come "on line" our numbers will reduce accordingly. This shouldn't come as a revelation to anyone, as it's been stated admin policy for the last two years. But I know that as soon as we reduce at all, the CARDs will be calling it a political victory and taking credit for it, so I mention it now. Posted by: Tully at November 18, 2005 11:39 AMMarc, Since none of us have a crystal ball, nor a path to an alternate 'what if' universe, it is ALL conjecture of course. I think everyone understands that. But the part of Ben's post I had a hardest time seeing any justification for is: after they were brought into such complete disrepute AQ was in disrepute in the western world long before 9/11. Not so in in the Mideastern world. Evidence the mideast reaction when the towers came down. I saw nothing change in this regard after we invaded Afghanistan. I read as much Arab(meaning mideastern) press as I can find translated to try and gage the Arab 'street'. I've have seen a major shift in how AQ is viewed in this media. Since Iraq. When you state a position contrary to what my common sense would tell me, I think I am justified in asking for a clarification. (Although I didn't in Ben's case because his seems an emotional response rather than a logical one. It is pointless to debate on an emotional level IMO). I try to back my positions with what *I see* as the evidence. Albiet anecdotal as Bobby points out. I would hope others do the same. withdrawal would embolden Al Quaeda? Where is the evidence for that? I would draw that hypothesis from an extrapolation of history. Past successes of AQ has led to other, more horrific attacks, as well as providing a strong recruitment tool. For now, I'll just mention one way in which Islamic terrorists have benefitted from the Iraq invasion so we address the basis for our disagreement one issue at a time. As a result of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, there have been precipitous declines in the Islamic world in public support for the US and in oppostion to terrorist action against US interests (fortunately, the Al Qaeda bombings in Jordan may be turning opinion there, but not necessarily as it relates to terrorist actions against US interests). After 9/11, the opposition to terrorism against the US was much less ambiguous in much of the Islamic world than it now is. Even an ambiguity in public opinion provides sufficient cover for Islamic terrorists to remain hidden and carry out attacks against the West.
The Democrats have decided to be the anti-war party. This is terrifying to me. If the Iraq war is won, or at least turns out well they are going to have a large political liability. I doubt any of them would intentionally harm the USA but I don't trust them to do what’s right either, since both parties routinely put party advantage ahead of what’s right for the country. In wartime politicians should put aside their adversarial bickering when it comes to the nations security. Instead they are doing the enemies job for them. Taking a page from history the Democrats are using nearly identical tactics against our troops that we used against the Germans in World War 2 with "Soldatensender Calais" and "Soldatensender West". The reports claiming we are losing the war and must surrender to save the country, the claims of incompetent leadership, the talk of an immoral or illegal war. These are what we used to broadcast to enemy solders to weaken their moral. These are the things we broadcast on the BBC and “Voice of America” to the resistance in France and Poland to encourage them to not give up, help is just around the corner, hold on a few more months and the Germans will be forced out. As a result of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, there have been precipitous declines in the Islamic world in public support for the US and in oppostion to terrorist action against US interests Cite current source for claim. Posted by: Tully at November 18, 2005 12:17 PMTully, do I really have to do this research to satisfy you? I'm sure you've seen the international opinion polls over the last few years. For the moment, I'd appreciate it if you took as a given (unless you have evidence that I'm wrong). Posted by: Ben Brackley at November 18, 2005 12:24 PMNewsBusters weighs in with more historical research on Murtha's opposition to the war, now chronicled back to September 2003. We're back over two years, and counting. Surely this is relevant to all the stories touting his recent "conversion" from "pro-war hawk" to CARD? Read the whole thing. It provides some more background on the historical revisionism as well. Posted by: Tully at November 18, 2005 12:30 PMAl Qaeda has benefitted immensely from our Iraqi misadventure, a good fortune that would be hard to imagine after they were brought into such complete disrepute and were on the run in the months after 9/11.I would suggest that the one benefit to Al Qaeda in us staying is the real world daily practice they get in roadside bombs, planning of suicide bombing etc. Now having said that I would agree with Dennis that a withdrawal that looks like "we lost" would be a great encourager for Al Qaeda. Tully; Ben, Do you think that the mid-level Egyptian police official or the Pakistani cabdriver is more or less likely to cooperate with the US in identifying anti-US Islamic terrorists as a result of Iraq? If we are to defeat Islamic terrorism, the cooperation of such people seems more important than winning military battles. At the end of the day, this is a battle for public opinion and the Iraq invasion and occupation has dealt us a pretty devastating blow in this regard. Hmmm... Well, I would argue that there's SIGNIFICANT evidence that the Pakistani Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) are FAR more likely to cooperate with the US in the War on Terror than they were prior to March 2003. Prior to OIF, one of the most frustrating aspects of serving in Afghanistan was the sheer unwillingness of the ISI to provide the Coalition with ANY actionable intelligence. After OIF (and the simultaneous Indian threats to escalate), Musharraf was forced to conduct a mini-purge of the ISI, took action against some of the terrorist financiers and recruiters, and the result was an actual war between Islamabad's security forces and the jihadists (which in the States, you probably saw as the back-to-back assasination attempts against him in late 2003/early 2004). This was a direct effect of what we hoped to achieve in toppling Saddam Hussein, which was to put the Islamic world on notice that the US was willing and able to use force against terrorists and those that supported terror (prior to 9/11, thirty years of Presidential policy-- Republican and Democratic alike-- had actually encouraged the opposite impression). We've seen a similar phenomena in Saudi Arabia, for example, where the Riyadh security forces have actually gotten into a number of firefights with jihadists. Again, those jihadists had always been there, but their presence had been overlooked, tolerated, and tacitly supported by the Riyadh regime for more than a decade. The firefights didn't break out until then-Crown Prince Abdullah felt he had to crackdown on them or risk the wrath of the United States. And, again, this was a result of the "Thunder Run." And perhaps the crown jewel in the policy is Libya's Qaddafi, who took one look at what the US was doing and folded his hand: he ended his quest for nuclear weapons and ceased his sponsorship of terrorist organizations. Now, you are correct that the Arab main street (such as there is one) is very hostile to the US, and the War in Iraq-- especially as it has been reported to them by Al Jazeera-- has caused our position to deteriorate badly (although you would be mistaken if you believed that we were ever really liked-- remember there were Palestinians, Egyptians, and Pakistanis dancing in the streets when they saw the footage of the Twin Towers being destroyed). And that's something we will eventually have to overcome if we're to defeat the root causes of terrorism. But, for defeating the actual effects of terror, we REQUIRE the cooperation of the various intelligence and security services of the Middle East. Throughout 2002, we were constantly frustrated by the refusal of those regimes to cooperate with us on that front; after the "Thunder Run," that was FAR LESS the case than it was before. Finally, however, in the interest of fairness, it must be said that we're seeing a significant amount of "back-pedaling" occuring on the part of the Iranian, Syrian, and even (to a lesser extent) the Saudi regimes than what we saw throughout 2004. Much of this is very likely a result of the Coalition's inability to subdue the insurgency in Iraq-- they are looking into Iraq, they are seeing our difficulties, and they are convinced they can return to their old ways. That's unfortunate. But given where we were in February 2003, it's hardly a benefit-- much less an "immense" benefit-- for the jihadists in general and it's certainly NOT a benefit for Al Qaeda specifically. I can assure you that much. Posted by: Bobby at November 18, 2005 12:37 PMFor that one you do, Ben. That Muslim views of America declined sharply right after the invasion is true. That they have continued to decline or stayed at those lower levels is contraindicated by the most recent Pew Surveys. Admittedly the most recent stuff I've seen goes clear back to the summer, but it was moving in our favor, both in terms of positive views of America and negative views of terrorism. Base polls here and here. And here's a post-9/11 2001 poll that shows how much they loved us in the first place. Seems we were a lot more popular when we were getting stomped on. That's not the kind of "public support" we need--support for getting our butts whipped. Chris--permission granted provided authorial attribution correctly made.... ;-) Posted by: Tully at November 18, 2005 12:48 PMO.K. Here you go. A year after the invasion of Iraq, 59% of Turks, 36% of Pakistanis, 27% of Moroccans and 24% of Jordanians said suicide bombings against American interests were justifiable. http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=206 Fortunately, following the London bombings, that support has declined in most Islamic countries (until recently, Jordan was one of the exceptions) but it is still very high. While support for Osama has mostly declined from its highs in May 2003 (following the invasion which legitimated for many Muslims bin Laden's theories about the US), 26% of Moroccans, 35% of Indonesians, 51% of Pakistanis and 60% of Jordanians still had a lot or some confidence in Osama bin Laden in July of this year. That's incredibly disturbing and I think it's difficult to dispute that the Iraq invasion and occupation did not greatly contribute to these perceptions. Posted by: Ben at November 18, 2005 12:48 PMTully, I personally believe that we will see some minor troop drawdowns as a matter of course in the very near future, for the simple reason that elements of the Iraqi military are now completely capable of handling things themselves. As more and more come "on line" our numbers will reduce accordingly. This shouldn't come as a revelation to anyone, as it's been stated admin policy for the last two years. But I know that as soon as we reduce at all, the CARDs will be calling it a political victory and taking credit for it, so I mention it now. In fact, because the Army Times is now reporting it over an open source, I can now publicly confirm that statement. In fact, Pentagon spokesman LTC Bryan Hilferty (with whom I actually served alongside in Afghanistan) announced last week the Pentagon's troop rotation plan through 2008. Beginning in mid-2006, the Army plans on deploying only six brigade combat teams (including one National Guard) and a total force commitment numbering 92,000 (it's currently 17 brigades and ~150,000 troops). I know which brigades those are planned, but since it won't be announced until next month, I have to keep my mouth shut. Now, as Tully noted, this was always our strategy, so I don't know why people would be surprised to learn of this. You shouldn't be-- it's what we've always promised you, that as Iraqi security forces become more capable of providing for their own internal security, then we will be able to phase out some US/Coalition commitments. Also, and I don't want to blow this out of proportion here, but the OEF (Afghanistan) leaders are starting to make their way into key positions in Iraq (Ambassador Khalilzad is now Ambassador in Baghdad; LTG Vines is commander of MNF-I), you should expect to see more creative uses of smaller numbers of troops performing more dynamic action, as opposed to the stale "boots on the ground" strategy of the Iraqi thinkers. And without impugning what they've done in OIF, that's all I'm going to say about that. Now I don't know if the "CARD"s are going to take credit for it and claim victory, as Tully suggests, but I can assure you that I have known about this for several months now, so it's certainly not a reaction to Rep. Murtha's recent statement (indeed, it predates it). But, not being a partisan, I'd also say I really don't care who gets the credit in the War on Terror, so long as we win it. Posted by: Bobby at November 18, 2005 12:50 PMO.K. Here you go. A year after the invasion of Iraq, 59% of Turks, 36% of Pakistanis, 27% of Moroccans and 24% of Jordanians said suicide bombings against American interests were justifiable. http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=206 Fortunately, following the London bombings, that support has declined in most Islamic countries (until recently, Jordan was one of the exceptions) but it is still very high. While support for Osama has mostly declined from its highs in May 2003 (following the invasion which legitimated for many Muslims bin Laden's theories about the US), 26% of Moroccans, 35% of Indonesians, 51% of Pakistanis and 60% of Jordanians still had a lot or some confidence in Osama bin Laden in July of this year. That's incredibly disturbing and I think it's difficult to dispute that the Iraq invasion and occupation did not greatly contribute to these perceptions. Posted by: Ben at November 18, 2005 12:51 PMTully, it looks like we cross-posted and that our interpretations of these polls are not surprisingly somewhat different. Sure the portrayal of the US on Arab television is a factor, but that was predictable. To me, it's inconceivable that Osama and terrorist attacks against US interests would enjoy the high support they still do in much of the Islamic world without the Iraq war. It's an albatross around our neck that has significantly complicated our most important foreign policy tasks. Posted by: Ben at November 18, 2005 01:00 PMSo, you have nothing more current than March 2004? Beware of getting your assumptions ossified, 'cause the world keeps on moving. Note that in the 2005 Pew Surveys the movement back in our direction and against terrorism started well before the Jordan bombings. Also what Bobby said. We can't ignore the positive side effects. Egypt is having their first open elections. Lebanon is rockin'. Libya has found other hobbies. And so on. When they started slaughtering fellow Muslims their stock started dropping accordingly, even if it doesn't mean that there'll be a major rise in ours, regardless of what we do. The two are not linked. I'd also say I really don't care who gets the credit in the War on Terror, so long as we win it. Absolutely, and hooray! Thanks for the confirms on troop drawdowns. I've known about some of that for several weeks but couldn't say anything specific, not knowing what the disclosure status was. That has driven a lot of my anger about the CARDs this last week or so--knowing that they knew about the deployment scheduling, and were almost certainly posturing themselves into place for claiming credit. With a fine disregard for those who have to face any real adverse results of the CARD posturing. Posted by: Tully at November 18, 2005 01:05 PMClarifying Note, Ben: Not saying you're wrong, saying that the trend appears to have reversed, and done so before the Jordan bombings. Why I specified "current" source. Posted by: Tully at November 18, 2005 01:11 PMTully, Why the troop rotation plan hasn't really received much attention on the cable news programs I don't really know (not sure if it's really being reported by the MSM, either, since I hardly watch television). It almost seems weird since it is precisely what Americans have said they want, the Pentagon announces that they're getting it, and then the media chooses not to report it... Odd. I was emailed yesterday by a mentor at the Pentagon who cited Murtha's staements with a reference to the Nixon-Kennedy debates-- wherein JFK publicly admonished the Eisenhower Administration for not taking active measures to remove Castro, despite knowing full well that the Operation Zapata and the Bay of Pigs was being planned (in fact, his Senate Committee had just been briefed on it!) I don't think it's a perfect analogy, since Rep. Murtha is calling for an immediate and complete withdrawal (and not simply a reduction), but that's just an example of how at least one rather high-ranking military officer feels about this matter. Posted by: Bobby at November 18, 2005 01:17 PMI erred in the following: A year after the invasion of Iraq, 59% of Turks, 36% of Pakistanis, 27% of Moroccans and 24% of Jordanians said suicide bombings against American interests were justifiable. That's not right as I should have realized if I had proofread the wacky Turkish number. In actuality: A year after the invasion of Iraq, 31% of Turks, 47% of Pakistanis, 66% of Moroccans and 70% of Jordanians said suicide bombings against American interests in Iraq were justifiable
If I remember the Pew surveys correctly, they were interesting in that our esteem had fallen, almost universally, throughout Europe and China, but they were stunning because we received so much unexpected positive opinion from the people of the Middle East. I'll have to surf around to find them, though. Posted by: Bobby at November 18, 2005 01:33 PMIf we had not invaded Iraq, would AQ have made the mistake of attacking targets that kill or wound muslims, the attacks that are causing them to quickly lose support? Posted by: Bernie at November 18, 2005 01:37 PMBernie: Chicken or egg? We may never know. But as their plans are to take over governments for the glory of the Caliphate, one would have to assume that means open assault at some point. Bobby, I'm going to skip the obvious media-bias dig there! :-) You can find the Pew site by clicking one of my survey links above, and then going up one level for the main archive menu. One last Murtha note: Murtha and Pete Stark were the only members of the House to vote YES for Charles Rangel's bill on re-instating the draft last year, right before the election. Even Rangel didn't vote yes, and urged his fellow Dems to vote against it, and it was his bill. Another false election-year claim that was spread around by the Dems. So if I accuse Murtha and his fellow CARDs of playing politics or being a wee bit nutty, I'm not just pulling it out of thin air. His portrayal as a pro-war hawk who suddenly converted gets weaker by the minute. Posted by: Tully at November 18, 2005 02:36 PM"U.S. and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq," the senior lawmaker said. "It's time for a change in direction." He said he believes all the forces could be redeployed over a six-month period. Murtha, a former Marine Corps colonel and veteran of the Vietnam war. Perhaps he's right, all US forces should leave Iraq, and head straight fo downtown Teran, or mabee Damascus, hey why not both. Iraq would be left peacefull and quiet. Posted by: Bernie at November 18, 2005 03:03 PMI thought that was my last Murtha note, and then Best of the Web brought this to my attention. Murtha's vocal opposition to the war he voted for extends back to before the vote itself. Namely, September 2002. Posted by: Tully at November 18, 2005 03:40 PM |
Archives
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
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
