Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

Grypd · 2005-02-01 17:45:49

Well it seems that France has decided it can no longer afford the 35 hour week. There Unions are angry but the Buisness community of France state if it does not happen it will cost france dear.

Interesting.

And in Britain we now have a law of self defence for Homeowners who find there house being broken into. Still means you just cant shoot him dead and keep pumping bullets in. But reasonable force if used and kills the Housebreaker will be allowed.

And the European space arm of Eads has made a profit last year. But forsees that there will be trouble ahead for all space contractors.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-02-01 20:41:07

Bill:-

The UN is corrupt, you say? Well, d'oh!

The glaringly obvious .. quite right, Bill!

Speaking of which, I seem to have lost track of the ongoing investigation into U.N. involvement in the subversion of its own Oil-for-Food program during the sanctions era in Iraq.
The last I heard, some months ago now, the corruption was alleged to have reached as high as either Kofi Annan, himself, or possibly his son. There were also rumours and allegations that, even if Chirac (France) and Schroeder (Germany) weren't directly implicated in the scam, ministry-level personnel in both countries were involved. I can't remember now how much involvement was attributed to Russian politicians.

I assume there is still activity behind the scenes to establish what really happened(?). Does anyone keep their finger on the pulse of this particular investigation?
???

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-02 06:09:29

I assume there is still activity behind the scenes to establish what really happened(?). Does anyone keep their finger on the pulse of this particular investigation?

The investigation continues, it's looking bad all around, a full report should be released within a few months.

It will be misquoted regularly, thus obligating me to read the whole damn thing.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-02-02 06:49:24

Thanks, CC. :up:
If you hear anything interesting about it, and if you get a minute, maybe you could give us a heads up?
No pressure .. just if it's convenient, that's all.

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-02 07:08:49

I'm always up for pointing out glaring faults of institutions working against what I want to see accomplished.

Now just have to wait for what will undoubtedly be a 500 page tome detailing every verifiable transaction dealing with Iraq going back to '91.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-02-04 07:56:57

A preliminary report is out, I heard.
Looks pretty damning for the U.N. Annan's son was mentioned and the Deputy Secretary-General, too, if I'm not mistaken.
???

BWhite · 2005-02-04 08:07:41

http://www.juancole.com/2005/02/marine- … .html]Juan Cole hits another home run. . .

One of the reasons that the Neoconservatives are wrong that unilateral war can be used for good, for spreading democracy, is that war brings out the worst in human beings, making some of them sadists and racists. Sometimes it is necessary to fight a war to defend oneself. An elective war is always a mistake. It twists one's own society, and someone else's as well.

Edited By BWhite on 1107526091

Palomar · 2005-02-04 08:34:26

*It's already happening, Bill. It's okay to protest and speak one's mind in opposition, but a lot of this seems like demands for unscrambling eggs. ???

We're there, we've been there for well over a year now. Can't undo any of it.

This is why I feel a lot of political discussion is basically -- in the long-run -- essentially pointless (though yes, it can be interesting and even gratifying).

It's like being a tiny twig trying to stop a flood in the Mississippi River...good luck. :-\

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-02-04 08:34:46

A preliminary report is out, I heard.
Looks pretty damning for the U.N. Annan's son was mentioned and the Deputy Secretary-General, too, if I'm not mistaken.
???

Round of the guilty people and put 'em in jail. End of story.

= = =

But this does strike me as rather Martha Stewart-esque - -
sure she's guilty but so are a whole heap of other people we KNOW the prosecutors will never ever touch.

= = =

But bringing down the UN?

The current global war is whether the US can impose its will on the rest of the world and "the world" - - EU, Russia, China, India, Islam, South America - - ain't buying it.

Do we really want to fight Anglo-English versus everyone else?

BWhite · 2005-02-04 08:35:39

*It's already happening, Bill. It's okay to protest and speak one's mind in opposition, but a lot of this seems like demands for unscrambling eggs. ???
We're there, we've been there for well over a year now. Can't undo any of it.
This is why I feel a lot of political discussion is basically -- in the long-run, essentially pointless (though yes, it can be interesting and even gratifying).
It's like being a tiny twig trying to stop a flood in the Mississippi River...good luck. :-\
--Cindy

Overcoming denial is the first step to recovery.

= = =

Edit: It is indeed unfortunate that my having strong opinions puts off some people.

I have very great respect for everyone having the right to their own opinion, which necessarily includes my right to explain why "their opinion" is simply wrong! :;):

Which you all can take or leave as you see fit.

And if I can be funny, snarky, pointed or even shrill, well, hey, that's my right, also. . .

Edited By BWhite on 1107528497

Palomar · 2005-02-04 09:02:56

*It's already happening, Bill. It's okay to protest and speak one's mind in opposition, but a lot of this seems like demands for unscrambling eggs. ???
We're there, we've been there for well over a year now. Can't undo any of it.
This is why I feel a lot of political discussion is basically -- in the long-run, essentially pointless (though yes, it can be interesting and even gratifying).
It's like being a tiny twig trying to stop a flood in the Mississippi River...good luck. :-\
--Cindy
Overcoming denial is the first step to recovery.
= = =
Edit: It is indeed unfortunate that my having strong opinions puts off some people.
I have very great respect for everyone having the right to their own opinion, which necessarily includes my right to explain why "their opinion" is simply wrong! :;):
Which you all can take or leave as you see fit.
And if I can be funny, snarky, pointed or even shrill, well, hey, that's my right, also. . .

*Hmmmmm. Well, speaking only for myself of course, you haven't "put me off" (which, to me, would entail avoiding related discussions entirely). I'm not sure why you think any one person (yourself, me, someone else) can or will make a difference though. :hm:

We're just a small group of space-exploration advocates (and some of us astronomy buffs as well) who gather here daily to discuss mutual matters of interest. It's not like the folks on Capitol Hill are probably watching our conversations and "taking notes." :;):

I enjoy political discussion too; you and I have very different approaches, though. Nothing wrong with that, of course.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-04 09:27:29

*Hmmmmm. Well, speaking only for myself of course, you haven't "put me off" (which, to me, would entail avoiding related discussions entirely). I'm not sure why you think any one person (yourself, me, someone else) can or will make a difference though. :hm:

It's one of the paradoxes of democracy that all progress still stems from individuals, just with a buffer step added. Any one of us can make as much difference as anyone else, though it entails a rather excessive persistence.

Not quite as effective as unlimted funds or a few thousand troops, but if you convince two friends and they convince two friends and . . .

Vaccinating the public against the virus of bad ideas.

Palomar · 2005-02-04 10:57:29

*Rescind comments, except to say: Cobra, that's sometimes true. But seldomly.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-02-04 12:54:31

http://www.monthlyreview.org/0703tabb.htm]Two Wings of the Eagle:

What is actually at issue here is the choice between two U.S. imperial strategies: a hegemony geared primarily to promoting neoliberal globalization on terms particularly favorable to the United States, and an alternative hegemony that steers toward the establishment of a more formal U.S. empire. These two paths represent alternative strategies that an imperial ruling class may choose between, but in many respects they may also be complementary.

Soft US power versus hard US power?

As globalization proceeds, the role of the nation-state as the relevant unit or actor of international (sic) political activity shall diminish.

Whither the United States or any other nation-state in the accomplishment of entering space?

Multi-national corporations and churches are two examples of entities capable of space exploration independent of the traditional nation state.

= = =

This sounds like political potpourri to me!

Shaun Barrett · 2005-02-04 20:18:41

Juan Cole:-

An elective war is always a mistake.

Unless my memory is failing me, CC and I have already established beyond reasonable doubt, in discussions here months ago, that elective war is most certainly not "always a mistake"!
One could argue that any war is always a terrible thing, not to be undertaken lightly; that would elicit very few negative responses from any quarter, I'm sure. But there must be very many cases in history which show conclusively that a military 'stitch-in-time' would have been the better option.
As an example, and at the risk of rehashing the same argument to refute the same nonsense yet again, I invoke the history of Europe leading up to WWII. If the European powers had elected in unison to go to war with Hitler's Germany on any one of several occasions prior to 1939, the Second World War as we know it today would have been averted. In addition, the routing of Nazi Germany before its power grew too great would have resulted in the toppling of Hitler from power long before the instigation of the infamous death-camps which took so many innocent lives.

I don't pretend to draw direct comparisons between the situation in Germany in the 1930s and the situation in Iraq recently. But the world is a complicated place, politically, and not amenable to analysis by the use of simplistic platitudes like "an elective war is always a mistake".

[P.S. If General Mattis actually said that about the "fun" in shooting people, then action should be taken against him. It would be bad enough for a Private to go on record with that kind of talk but a General is more than just a soldier, he carries some degree of political responsibility also.
However, to use this as some kind of justification for his "elective war" statement, Cole stretches credulity well beyond breaking point. I think it's an emotionally-charged and transparently specious argument on his part, which most thinking people, I suspect, will have quite rightly dismissed out of hand.]

dickbill · 2005-02-05 20:46:11

I invoke the history of Europe leading up to WWII. If the European powers had elected in unison to go to war with Hitler's Germany on any one of several occasions prior to 1939, the Second World War as we know it today would have been averted. In addition, the routing of Nazi Germany before its power grew too great would have resulted in the toppling of Hitler from power long before the instigation of the infamous death-camps which took so many innocent lives.

Possibly Shaun, but who knows what would have happened if things had not been what they were.
But back to that article of Robets et al. in the lancet (Lancet 2004; 364: 1857–64) and the value of about a thousands death for war casualties in Iraq.
Quoting the paper :
"We estimated the death toll associated with the conflict
by subtracting preinvasion mortality from post-invasion
mortality, and multiplying that rate by the estimated
population of Iraq (assumed 24·4 million at the onset of
the conflict) and by 17·8 months, the average period
between the invasion and the survey.
interviewed."
So, how they evaluate the pre and post war mortalities ?
I quote the paper again :
"33 randomly selected locations were visited and
988 households were chosen between Sept 8 and 20,
2004. These households contained 7868 residents on the
date of interview. Of these residents, 237 (3%) were
younger than 1 year, 1004 (13%) were younger than 5
years, and 3084 (39%) were younger than 15 years. Of
the 4453 (57%) residents age 15–59 years, 2220 were
men. Of the 331 (4%) residents age 60 years or older, 152
were men."

So they interviewed themself 988 households. That gave them, as said earlier, an interval of "8000-194 000" with 95% of confidentiality. Then the "100 000" lays about in the middle. I pass on the details and numerous problems they faced. I cannot copy paste illegally here the full text but if you want the whole paper email me confidentially. I personnaly think they are serious, they made conservative assertions, this value of about 100 000 postwar extradeath, including many women and children, is the price paid officially until other studies prove otherwise.

How's that possible ? well, it's not because it's not on FOX News that it didn't happen. I quote again a comment of Bushra Ibrahim Al-Rubeyi....just his name casts doubts ? however, listen to what he said about this article , in the same Lancet numero:

"...the death toll from the invasion and occupation of Iraq is
about 98 000 civilians, and it might be considerably higher.
The deaths are mostly related to air strikes.
After this survey was reported, politicians reacted
promptly—casting doubt on the findings and questioning
the methodology used. They frequently referred to the Iraq
Body Count Database, implying that it more accurately
reflects the civilian casualties than other reports. The figures
on the Iraq Body Count Database include about
7350 deaths caused by the coalition’s major-combat phase,
which ended on May 1, 2003, and about 16 352 Iraqi...
...I was in Baghdad for 5 weeks in May, 2003. In my first
2 weeks there were daily battles between US soldiers and
Iraqi gunmen, particularly in the Adheymia district. When a
shot was fired at US troops, it almost always led to random
shooting by US troops at anyone at the site. In one of these
incidents, 60 Iraqi civilians, mainly women and children,
died in a shopping centre. The media did not mention this
incident.
In the UK, government ministers have insisted that they
do not have official figures for Iraqi civilian casualties. They
repeated Tommy Franks’ (US Central Command) statement
that they “do not do body counts”..."

Possible that everybody is lying in the Lancet, but until we see a full retraction of the paper, these value are going to stay.

BWhite · 2005-02-05 23:43:22

Some historians claim England was not ready for war when Chamberlain made his infamous deal with Hitler and that England profitably used the years between the Munich "appeasement" and May 1940 manufacturing large numbers of Spitfires and Hurricanes.

Few things in history are black and white.

= = =

As for Iraq, had we embraced the current scenario as Plan A, I would have been much less critical of Saddam's removal.

It appears the Sistani favored Shia slate will win, and win big as a result of last weeks election. Put simply, good! This gives the US one last chance to resolve the mess on terms that offer lasting stability.

But remember, the current situation is Plan D for the neo-cons.

Plan A?

An Iraq ruled by Chalabi and his exile cronies. Plan A has been long since tossed in the circular file cabinet.

Plan B?

Paul Bremer plays Douglas MacArthur for 4, 5 or 6 years and Iraq remains a US military zone. I believe Cobra Commander favored this scenario even after elections were scheduled.

Sistani wanted elections one year ago.

Paul Bremer's FUBAR-ed efforts to Ameri-form Iraq have and will cost us dearly in the future.

Plan C?

Allawi is made the "winner" by rigging the election results.

THANK GOD! no one tried this. The ensuing Shia insurgency would have made current events look like child's play.

Also, I believe some in Washington actually believed Allawi had widespread support.

In a nutshell? Wrong!

Sistani plainly is the "big kahuna" in Iraq and he refuses to meet face-to-face with US envoys. ???

Plan D?

A coalition of Shia leaders are given substantial political control. Not a bad result IF we avoid military action against Iran since the Najaf Shia and the Qom Shia are rivals.

Invade Iran? The Najaf Shia and the Qom Shia may set aside their differences to fight the Great Satan, America.

But remember, Plan D (what we have today) could have been accomplished 12 - 14 months ago with hundreds fewer US casualties and billions less in expended treasure.

Make no mistake, Plan D - - giving Sistani de facto control - - is the best it can possibly get for the US however it is a shame we didn't simply agree to do this a year ago.

Edited By BWhite on 1107668962

Shaun Barrett · 2005-02-06 18:48:57

Thanks Dickbill, for your latest post re. death rates in Iraq.
I have read The Lancet report and I did see one or two analyses of it, at least one of which was written by someone with more expertise in statistics than I'll ever have(! ).
I don't have access to those analyses right now, so anything I say about them will have to be based on memory - and treated with the appropriate caution by those of you who may have reservations about my honesty .. or, more to the point at my age, my memory!
Here are the main points, as I recall them (and I've almost certainly missed a few):-

1) Serious and credible doubts were cast on the accuracy of the pre-war death-rate figure used by The Lancet. And that pre-war death-rate estimate makes a large difference to the calculation of how many civilians died after the war began. The way small differences in that pre-war death-rate affect The Lancet's conclusions were set out in some detail and I remember finding the mathematics to be sound and persuasive.

2) Doubts were cast also on the representative reliability of the places chosen for the data gathering - if you choose areas of intense violence for your death-rate data, and then extrapolate those data to the rest of the country, you get higher death-rates.

3) The critics asked how it was possible to be sure that all the 'civilians' killed were really civilians, since the terrorists don't wear uniforms. Also, if a family which was part of the survey had lost one or two family members, who were in fact terrorists killed in the process of creating public mayhem, would they be likely to admit as much? Or would they claim the loss as the unjust killing of innocent family members by the Coalition?

4) The critic who claimed some expertise in statistics and who drew attention to the error-range of 8,000-194,000 extra deaths, said that that kind of statistical margin for error indicated the report was too unreliable to be treated seriously. I'm certainly no expert on statistical analysis but I do know what those figures mean. They mean that the data gathered could only be trusted, with 95% confidence, to produce a total extra death-rate somewhere between 8,000 and 194,000. This means that the number of extra deaths attributable to the war might be 194,000. But, just as possible within the restraints of the survey, the figure might be 8,000.
Picking a figure of 100,000, because it's close to the middle of this range, doesn't inspire any confidence in me at all because I understand it's a stab-in-the-dark. Any number within the range is possible.

In conclusion, I'm not saying the figure of 100,000 is wrong. I can't say that because it's impossible to be sure. But what is undoubtedly wrong is the fact that the media picked up that demonstrably unreliable figure and ran with it - for the most part failing to indicate the gross statistical uncertainties associated with it.
At best, this is appallingly sloppy journalism; at worst, it's one more attempt to marshal world opinion against the liberation of Iraq. And there's little doubt in my mind that it's a case of the latter rather than the former because I see it, day-in-day-out on T.V. and in my newspaper, as part of a bigger picture of left-leaning anti-Americanism (or simply tribal anti-Bushism) in much of the world media.

Thanks, Bill and Dickbill, for the comments regarding history not being "black and white" and the impossibility of being sure what might have transpired, had certain factors in history been different.
This is all true of history but sometimes, in the present, you just have to act on the basis of your best interpretation of the situation. Although I admit that one's 'best interpretation of the situation' can very often be much clearer later on, through one's 'retrospectoscope'!

BWhite · 2005-02-06 19:17:20

In conclusion, I'm not saying the figure of 100,000 is wrong. I can't say that because it's impossible to be sure. But what is undoubtedly wrong is the fact that the media picked up that demonstrably unreliable figure and ran with it - for the most part failing to indicate the gross statistical uncertainties associated with it.
At best, this is appallingly sloppy journalism; at worst, it's one more attempt to marshal world opinion against the liberation of Iraq.

So too was the media's frenzy to announce that Saddam's WMD were an imminent threat to the West.

Yellowcake from Niger? al-Qaeda meeting Saddam's men in Prague? Saddam's soldiers ripping new-borns from incubators in Kuwait, back in 1990?

Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy and "yes-men" for the White House.

And as we know from Paul Wolfowitz, the Administration knew perfectly well that the "real reason" for Saddam regime change would never have been popular. ???

= = =

Had Bush said that we shall remove Saddam and then transfer give real power to Sistani's people, I probably would have supported the invasion. Because then Saddam's removal (an evil MF to be sure) would have been accomplished consistent with the Clintonista policy in the former Yugoslavia. :;):

(Edit - - had Bush renounced any long term US plan to stay, we probably would have had more significant foreign support.)

But as William Shakespeare says, "All Well that Ends Well" and since Rumsfeld has announced Iran is many years away from nukes (meaning NO imminent invasion of Iran) and since we seem to acknowledge that Sistani "won" the elections and therefore we will not seek to impose our puppets on Iraq, maybe things will end up being just fine.

Except for $100 billion dollars in wasted money and several hundred US dead and thousands (tens or hundreds of thousands) of Iraqi dead who would be alive had we given the keys to Iraq to Sistani 14 months ago.

Edited By BWhite on 1107739343

Palomar · 2005-02-06 19:27:30

However, to use this as some kind of justification for his "elective war" statement, Cole stretches credulity well beyond breaking point. I think it's an emotionally-charged and transparently specious argument on his part, which most thinking people, I suspect, will have quite rightly dismissed out of hand.]

*Good points, Shaun. Actually, and unfortunately, I think a lot more people -do- buy into pat and absolute pronouncements of that sort than is comforting.

But then most of the Talking Heads are probably megalomaniacs to begin with (to make absolutist comments to begin with).

--Cindy

P.S.: And I refer this to absolutist statements and Talking Heads on either side of the issue.

BWhite · 2005-02-06 19:29:19

However, to use this as some kind of justification for his "elective war" statement, Cole stretches credulity well beyond breaking point. I think it's an emotionally-charged and transparently specious argument on his part, which most thinking people, I suspect, will have quite rightly dismissed out of hand.]

*Good points, Shaun. Actually, and unfortunately, I think a lot more people -do- buy into pat and absolute pronouncements of that sort.
But then most of the Talking Heads are probably megalomaniacs to begin with.
--Cindy

Heh!

Dismissed out of hand? What am I? Chopped liver?

Shaun Barrett · 2005-02-07 04:31:23

Well, maybe ... but extraordinarily intelligent and sharp-thinking chopped liver! :laugh:

BWhite · 2005-02-07 22:47:31

Juan Cole is excellent, again.

This is taken from a blogger-war with Jonah Goldberg, son of the woman who tape recorded Monica Lewinsky:

Jonah notes that I found it difficult to oppose the 2003 war against Iraq because I also did not want to help keep Saddam in power, to continue to oppress the Iraqi population. But that is different from saying that I advocated the war. In fact, I said more than once that I thought it was a very bad idea, that it was not justified by any threat to the US from Iraq, that there was no Iraq-al-Qaeda link, and that no war would be legitimate without the full support of the international community (as suggested in the Genocide Convention). I also said that I felt that the US military lives lost in the March-April 2003 war were not for naught, because they did overthrow a genocidal dictator. It would be horrible to think that those lives were wasted. They weren't. But lives lost after about May of 2003 were often lost unnecessarily and as the result of bad Bush administration policy. Goldberg is hoping to Kerryize me because my position on the war can't be reduced to a sound bite. I don't really care. I'm not running for office and I'm not making any money to speak of from this punditry gig. If people can't imagine that you can hate Saddam and also think a unilateral war and long-term occupation of an Arab country are bad ideas, that is their problem.

Hate Saddam? Okay, I agree.
Glad he is gone? Okay, I agree.
Believe Bush FUBAR-ed the whole operation? Yup, I agree.

Three for three.

http://www.juancole.com/2005/02/goldberg-v.html]Link

Edited By BWhite on 1107838146

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-08 06:50:58

Hate Saddam? Okay, I agree.

Check.

Glad he is gone? Okay, I agree.

Check.

Believe Bush FUBAR-ed the whole operation? Yup, I agree.

Che... hold up. Define "FUBAR-ed". Are we talking "made some major mistakes that created unnecessary problems", in which case I'm with you, or is it "the whole thing is screwed on every level, hopeless quagmire, we're doomed"?

Sure, mistakes were made. Yep, damn insurgents running around blowing stuff up. Such is the nature of these things, time for perspective. It's tempting to compare the situation to Vietnam (yet in the context it's now used Vietnam wasn't even "Vietnam") but such isn't the best example. This is a combination of the US occupation of Germany and the German occupation of France. Some diehards with foreign assistance and in some cases foreign fighters keep attacking against hopeless odds. Most of the people don't particularly like the occupying power and would prefer that they go home, but tolerate it given the alternative, Soviet occupation in the case of Germany and another tyrannical regime in the case of Iraq.

So if the definition of a "FUBAR-ed" operation is any one that meets resistance and has setbacks then it's always FUBAR-ed The American Civil War, FUBAR. WWII, FUBAR. On and on and everything in between. I'm more concerned with end results, and from an objective stance things aren't going horribly in Iraq. The insurgency hasn't gained widespread support, the majority of the population turned out for elections, the Iraqi security forces are slowly getting their act together. It can be debated endlessly whether the war was justified or even worth it with valid arguments on all sides, but to imply that it's an unmitigated failure is just wrong.

Another bit of cold perspective, remember back beore the invasion all those estimates being bandied about that 10,000 troops would be lost taking the country in bloody urban warfare. The media pointed it it out repeatedly but not too alarmist, the Pentagon acknowledged the possibilty of such casualties, though not through the most visible mouthpieces. From that point, 1000 dead two years out would have seemed an insanely rosy fantasy. It's unfortunate that any had to die and I offer my condolences to the families, but it must be said that some good is being accomplished and this will not be looked on as unfavorably as is fashionable at the moment. 10, 15 years down the line we'll be hearing a very different story unless something goes dramatically wrong.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-02-08 06:58:18

Juan Cole:-

If people can't imagine that you can hate Saddam and also think a unilateral war and long-term occupation of an Arab country are bad ideas, that is their problem.

I don't have such a problem. I don't have to imagine any such thing. I know real people who have made this mistake.

Shaun Barrett, about Bill:-

Well, maybe ... but extraordinarily intelligent and sharp-thinking chopped liver!

Hmmm. Nevertheless, still essentially chopped liver, I see!

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#176 2005-02-01 17:45:49

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#177 2005-02-01 20:41:07

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#178 2005-02-02 06:09:29

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#179 2005-02-02 06:49:24

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#180 2005-02-02 07:08:49

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#181 2005-02-04 07:56:57

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#182 2005-02-04 08:07:41

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#183 2005-02-04 08:34:26

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#184 2005-02-04 08:34:46

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#185 2005-02-04 08:35:39

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#186 2005-02-04 09:02:56

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#187 2005-02-04 09:27:29

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#188 2005-02-04 10:57:29

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#189 2005-02-04 12:54:31

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#190 2005-02-04 20:18:41

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#191 2005-02-05 20:46:11

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#192 2005-02-05 23:43:22

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#193 2005-02-06 18:48:57

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#194 2005-02-06 19:17:20

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#195 2005-02-06 19:27:30

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#196 2005-02-06 19:29:19

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#197 2005-02-07 04:31:23

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#198 2005-02-07 22:47:31

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#199 2005-02-08 06:50:58

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#200 2005-02-08 06:58:18

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

Board footer