Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude

Here we discuss sex and politics, loudly, no apologies hence "screeds" and "attitude."

2/14/2015

shonda rhimes turns out to be a sick f**k

did you ever date some 1 and think they were wonderful?

and you told them that?

and while you were growing closer to them, it turned out that they couldn't handle any 1 truly loving them so they began rejecting you and attacking you?

basically, they just punished you for loving them?

that's shonda rhimes.

america embraced 'scandal' and olivia pope.

and shonda apparently can't handle that.

so she's determined to run ofF viewers.

thursday night was the 3rd episode in a row that outright sucked.

she continues to play olivia as the victim.

bad enough that she is being sold like a slave, now we had her being manhandled.  and by a crazy kidnapper who wants to rape her.

this is how shonda chooses to portray a breakthrough female character like olivia pope.

and elsewhere it was all about the men - fitz, jake, huck and cyrus being 'manly' (cyrus even called a woman his bitch).

and mellie?  the first lady begged fits to let andrew (vice president) walk because if fitz threw him in prison, andrew was going to tell the world about his affair with mellie.

that would hurt mellie's chance to be the next president.

really?

andrew is tossed in prison for plotting a bombing to make him look good and to start a war and then he says, 'oh  i slept with the first lady!' and people are going to believe him?

i don't see it.

more importantly, mellie asked for andrew not to go to prison - andrew, the man responsible for the murder of her son jerry.

this is 1 sick f**k of a show these days.

my theory is that shonda rhimes can't handle being loved so she is running off her viewers.



let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'


Saturday, February 14, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, the Islamic State seizes control of another city in Iraq, we continue to explore Thursday's House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Barack Obama's AUMF request, could three Democratic women who serve on that Committee publicly explain why they chose not to attend the hearing -- this would include the woman who had plenty of time to do press all day Thursday even if she couldn't get her ass to the hearing, and much more.




US House Rep Lee Zelden: I'm going to read a letter that  I just received in my remaining time.  I received this letter from someone who is watching.  So there are people at home who watch these hearings.  He says, "Lee, as a parent of a lieutenant in the  Marines I have no doubt that, if deployed, he will do his duty with valor and distinction.  However, unless (one) the President can specifically articulate our goals, (two) the President explains a strategy speficially designed to achieve those goals and those goals include the utter destruction of ISIS where ever they function and (three) our troops are given whatever they need for however long they need it without restriction both as to weapons and tactics, I request that you vote against the authorization. The document, as drafted, appears to me to be an attempt to codify a failed strategy of limiting our ability to prevail.  It is a political document which allows the President to say he could not do more because Congress will not let him.  He knows his strategy is failing and he needs someone else to blame.  I will be damned if my son is going to be asked to risk his life for a failed strategy simply to allow the President to avoid the consequences of his incompetence.  War is an all or nothing thing. Either authorize the full force -- political, military and economic -- of the United States or do not send our troops into harms way.  We must fight to win or not fight at all. 


Zelden was speaking at Thursday's House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing.  Offering a perspective on the issue from a parent's stand point was another member of the Committee.


Lois Frankel: Let me just start, I-I-I -- There have been many folks on this panel who served our country.  I want to thank them and those of you have.  I come from a little different perspective because I have a son who I saw go to two wars.  Sorry if I babble or get emotional.  But I wanted to say that I'm lucky he came home safely.  I cannot tell you how horrific it was for his family.  I don't even [shakes head].  So when I think of the families who lost their children, their loved ones. The morbidity of the thousands of soldiers who return.  And then we have to say what for?  So for me to make a decision of whether to send someone else's child into harms way is, I think, the biggest decision or most important one that I will make in Congress.  And I feel like we have been given this huge jigsaw puzzle where the pieces do not fit.   

We started coverage of the hearing in Thursday's snapshot.  It will probably continue in Monday's snapshot.  Because it is an important hearing and because it is an important topic.  Ruth and Marcia have expressed dismay over outlets that they had every right to expect would be offering AUMF coverage but has not.  I had not thought to consider who was covering the hearing and who wasn't because the issue is so important I (wrongly) assumed many sites would be covering it. We'll come back to the issue of importance with an emphasis on failures later in the snapshot.


For now, the witnesses appearing before the committee included former US Ambassador James Jeffrey, the Center for a New American Security's Dafna H. Rand and RAND Corporation's Rick Brennan.  US House Rep Ed Royce is the Chair of the Committee and US House Rep Eliot Engel is the Ranking Member.


The topic of the hearing was the White House's AUMF request.

The what?

The White House issued a fact sheet explaining the basics:




1. What is an AUMF?
An AUMF, or authorization of use of military force, is a law passed by Congress that authorizes the President to use U.S. military force.  
2. What is the President’s proposal for an AUMF against ISIL? 
The President is submitting a draft of an AUMF to Congress to authorize the continued limited use of military force to degrade and defeat ISIL. Key elements of the President’s proposal include:

  • A three-year limit on the AUMF so that the next President, Congress, and the American people can assess the progress we have made against ISIL and review these authorities again
  • A repeal of the 2002 Iraq AUMF which authorized the 2003 Iraq invasion under President George W. Bush
It’s important to note that the AUMF the President is proposing would not authorize long-term, large-scale ground combat operations like those our nation conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan. His proposal does seek the flexibility to conduct ground operations in other, more limited circumstances, including:


  • Rescue operations involving U.S. or coalition personnel
  • Special Operations missions against ISIL leadership
  • Intelligence collection and assistance to partner forces


The AUMF President Barack Obama is requesting has received criticism from many sides.  Friday, IPS offered two voices.  Paul Findley is a former US House Rep who "was a principal author of the War Powers Resolution of 1973" and he offers,  "If I were still in Congress I would oppose any resolution that authorizes further involvement there. Our forces have been killing Muslims by the tens of thousands for the past decade in the misleading label of anti-terrorism. Bombing kills innocent people whose friends are furious over these killings."


And international law expert and University of Illinois College of Law professor Frances A. Boyle explains:


"In the cover letter, Obama would use special forces, which is how the Vietnam War started. Once you have ground troops over there in combat, there is really no way to prevent escalation or to call it off and he knows it. What happens when one of our soldiers is captured and killed by ISIL? What kind of jingoism will that unleash and what escalations will that facilitate?

    "He only talks about 'tailoring' the 2001 AUMF. It should be repealed, not 'tailored.'

    "This Resolution sets a dangerous precedent. Up until the 2001 AUMF, all War Powers Resolutions had been adopted with respect to a State, not alleged terrorist organizations that can operate anywhere in the world as defined by the President. This Resolution continues in that dangerous path, basically substituting ISIS for al-Qaeda and continuing to wage a global war on terrorism. So if Obama cannot plausibly invoke the 2001 Resolution because there is no connection to 9/11 as required therein, he will simply invoke this Resolution. Between the two resolutions you can have the U.S. government waging war all over the world.

    "The Resolution states: 'The authority granted in subsection (a) does not authorize the use of the USAF in enduring offensive ground combat operations.' In other words, it does indeed authorize the use of USAF in offensive ground combat operations. 'Enduring' is in the eye of the beholder. Three years from now could have another 100,000 troops back in Iraq and maybe Syria too.

    "Congress cannot lawfully give him authorization to use military force against Syria. That requires the permission of the Syrian government, which they do not have, or else the authorization of the Security Council, which they do not have. As for Iraq, [Iraqi Prime Minister Haider] al-Abadi is a puppet government that Obama installed and therefore has no authority under international law to consent to U.S. military operations in Iraq. It is like in Vietnam when we had our puppets there asking us to conduct military operations there."




On Thursday, US House Rep Alan Grayson used his line of questioning to highlight various problems with the AUMF request.


US House Rep Alan Grayson:  Section 2C of the President's draft Authorization of the Use of Military Force reads as follows The authority granted in sub-section A does not authorize the use of US armed forces in enduring offensive ground US operations.  Ambassador Jeffrey, what does enduring me?

James Jeffrey:  Uh.  My answer would be a somewhat sarcastic one.  Whatever the executive at the time defines enduring as.  And I have a real problem with that.

US House Rep Alan Grayson: Dr. Brennan?

Rick Brennan Jr.:  I have real problems with that also.  Not only because it's -- I don't know what it means and I could just see the lawyers fighting over the meaning of this.  Uh, but-but more importantly, if you're looking at-at, uh, committing forces for something that you say is either vital or an important issue to the United States and you get in the middle of a battle and all the sudden are you on offense or are you on defense? What happens if neighbors cause problems?  Uh, wars never end the way that they were envisioned.  And so that's, I think, a-a-a-a terrible mistake to put in the AUMF.

US House Rep Alan Grayson: Dr. Rand?

Dafna Rand:  Enduring, in my mind, specifies an open-endedness.  It specifies lack of clarity on the particular objective at hand.

US House Rep Alan Grayson: Dr. Rand, is two weeks enduring?

Dafna Rand: I would leave that to the lawyer to determine exactly.

US House Rep Alan Grayson: So your answer is you don't know, right?  How 'bout two months?

Dafna Rand:  I don't know.  It would depend -- Again, I think it would depend on the particular objective.  "Enduring," in my mind, does not have a particular objective in mind.

US House Rep Alan Grayson: So you don't really know what it means?  Is that a fair statement?

Dafna Rand: Uhm, "enduring," in my mind, means "open ended."

US House Rep Alan Grayson:  Alright.  Section five of the draft for the Authorization of the Use of Military Force reads as follows:  In this joint-resolution, the term "associacted persons or forces" means individuals and organizations fighting for, on behalf of or alongside ISIL or any closely related successor in the hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.  Ambassador Jeffrey. what does "alongside ISIL" mean?

James Jeffrey:  Uh, I didn't draft this thing but uh

US House Rep Alan Grayson:  Nor did I.

James Jeffrey:  Nor did you.  But I would have put that in there if I had been drafting it.  And the reason is, I think they went back to 2001 -- of course, this is the authorization we're still using -- along with the 2002 one -- for this campaign.  And these things morph.  For example, we've had a debate over whether ISIS is really an element of al Qaeda.  It certainly was when I knew it as al Qaeda in Iraq from 2010 to 2012.  And these semantic arguments confuse us and confuse our people on the ground in trying to deal with these folks.  You'll now it when you see it if it's an ISIS or it's an ally of ISIS?

US House Rep Alan Grayson: How about the Free Syrian Army?  Are they fighting alongside of ISIL in Syria?

James Jeffrey:  Uh, no, they're not fighting along ISIL.  In fact, often they're fighting against ISIL and ISIL against them, in particular.

US House Rep Alan Grayson:  What about Assad is he fighting for or against?  It's kind of hard to tell without a scorecard, isn't it?

James Jeffrey:  It sure is.

US House Rep Alan Grayson:  Yeah.  What about you, Dr. Brennan?  Can you tell me what alongside ISIL means?


Rick Brennan Jr.:  No, I really couldn't.  I think that, uh, what -- It might be that -- The 9-11 Commission uses the phrase radical Is-Islamist organizations and I think maybe if we went to wording like that -- It includes all those 52 groups that adhere to that-that type of ideology that threaten the United States.  But we're putting ourselves in boxes and as you said, Senat - uh, Congressman,  trying-trying to understand what that means, what the limits are, uh, who we're dealing with is very confusing.

US House Rep Alan Grayson:  Dr. Rand?

Dafna Rand:  Well, first of all, I believe that confusion is probably a function of the fact that this is an unclassified document.  So it's not going to specify exactly which groups are associates.  That would be for classified setting but second, as I said, in the testimony, the nature of the alliances within ISIL are changing and are fluid.  And those who are targeting -- military experts -- know exactly who is a derivative, an associate or an ally of ISIS at any given moment. 


US House Rep Alan Grayson:  Why are you so confident of that?  It seems to me it's a question of terminology not a matter of ascertainable fact

Dafna Rand:  Uhm, based on my public service.  I've seen some of the lawyers and some of the methodologies and --

US House Rep Alan Grayson:   Alright, here's the $64 billion dollar question for you Ambassador Jeffrey -- and then, if we have time, for you others -- if you can't tell us -- you three experts -- can't tell us what these words mean, what does that tell us?  Ambassador Jeffrey?

James Jeffrey: Uhm, that it's very difficult to be using a tool basically designed to declare war -- or something like war -- on a nation-state -- which has a fixed definition -- against a group that morphs, that changes its name, that has allies and other things.  Do we not fight it?  We have to fight it.   Uh, are we having a hard time defining it?  Uh, you bet. 

US House Rep Alan Grayson:  Dr. Brennan?

Rick Brennan Jr.:   I-I agree with the ambassador.  I think -- I think the issue that we need to be looking at is trying to broaden the terminology and understand that it is -- it is a tenant or organization  or groups that adheres to this ideology and make it broad enough that if one pops up in a different country that is doing the same thing, that is a sister of this uh,uh, organization, the president has the authority to act.

US House Rep Alan Grayson:  Dr. Brennan, I think you just described a blank check which I'm not willing to give to the president or anyone else.  But thank you for your time. 



Let's move over to US House Rep Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.  This was her opening statement:


We all are deeply saddened by Kayla's -- by Kayla's appalling murder by ISIL terrorists.  She made it her mission to care about humanity in a region that seems to no longer value human life and our prayers go out to her family.  The brutality of ISIL truly knows no bounds and this cancer continues to grow and metastasize throughout the region.  The President has finally given us a draft AUMF that may actually our engagement in the region so I look forward to a robust debate here in our Committee on it.  But I firmly believe that no matter what happens with the AUMF, solving the problem of ISIL cannot happen without simultaneously addressing the problems of Assad and Iran.  The administration's de facto partnership with Assad ensures that Syria will continue to be a terrorist breeding ground for groups like ISIL and we will never be victorious that way.  A big part of the administration's ISIL strategy is to train and equip a program that seeks to enhance the capability of   moderate Syrian opposition  leaders yet, Mr. Chairman, that program hasn't really started yet.  The administration has said these fighters will be trained for defensive -- not offensive -- action. And we're not engaging the Assad regime directly -- only ISIL.  I worry that this policy is not going to be a victorious one. 



In her questioning, she would touch on Syria again,  "The Obama administration states that the training of Syrian moderate fighters is a large part of our strategy but as of yet we have not seen much evidence of this success.  Former Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford said in our Middle East Subcommittee that the administration doesn't bother to coordinate or discuss strategy with Syria's moderate fighters at all."  I don't support war on Syria and we're not doing the "Syrian snapshot."

She did ask about Iraq and noted, "And Mr. Ambassador you testified that Iran's policies almost drove Iraq apart between 2012 and 2014."

The responses included, James Jeffrey, "The poster boy for the cause is Qasem Soleimani  who has done a great deal to drive Iraq into the disunity that ISIS was able to exploit in 2014 by allowing and, in some cases,  encouraging [Nouri al-] Maliki of the Shia governing coalition to oppress the Sunnis and disagree with the Kurds such that the country was not holding together well.  And then ISIS came on the scene and we saw what happened."


Why are we noting the Syrian aspect?

It goes to a larger issue.

As a feminist, I am aware women are under-represented in all walks of life in the US and that they are rarely the go-to for an interview on foreign policy or war.  There were three witnesses appearing before the Committee.  That one was a woman is still significant all this time later.  There are still hearing where no woman is a witness.  Even at this late date.

This full Committee hearing should have provided us with an opportunity to highlight a number of women since a number of women serve on the Committee.

Well . . .

. . . are assigned to the Committee.


Can't say they serve if they can't drag their tired asses to a full Committee hearing.

We've noted Ros-Lehtinen and Frankel.  We'll be noting Grace Meng in a moment.

And that's all we'll note.

Three other female members of the Committee didn't show.

Now maybe one was sick.

Maybe even two were.

But I know for a fact that one of the three wasn't sick at all.  She gave a newspaper interview on Thursday, she gave an interview to KPFK and she appeared on TV with Al Sharpton.

She had plenty of time to self-promote.

She just couldn't show up for a hearing.

A hearing on the Iraq War.


The one she pretended was so important to her last June.


Remember that?

And her ridiculous statements then?

Pretending to grasp history but speaking as if she thought the Ottoman Empire ended with the end of the Gulf War?

And she ended up by insisting she would never authorize US troops into Iraq.

Has she forgotten that?

We can repost her words in case she has forgotten:

I cannot imagine sending our troops back to Iraq.   We should not answer previous blunders with additional missteps. Our nation has sacrificed too much already in Iraq, and it is time for Iraq’s leaders to step up and diffuse the sectarian differences that are tearing the country apart.


So where was she Thursday when her Committee was exploring the AUMF?


Well, see, it's one thing to say she won't go along with US troops sent into Iraq when Barack's just said -- as he had in June -- that he won't send troops in.


It's different when he's asking for the power to do so.


Then our 'brave' Congress member can't show.


And members of her district -- who overwhelmingly oppose US troops being sent into Iraq -- should be asking why   Karen Bass couldn't get her  ass to the hearing on Congress granting military authorization for war on Iraq.



As for one of the others, she couldn't come to the hearing -- for whatever reason -- but the day before, she did Tweet.


Robin Kelly @RepRobinKelly · Feb 10
My thoughts go out to Kayla Mueller’s family. Her selfless devotion to improving the world will not be forgotten
0 replies4 retweets1 favorite




Her thoughts go out.

Not enough of course to show up for the hearing on the Islamic State.

But she can concentrate long enough to type a brief Tweet.

How proud she must be of herself.

And that's good because I don't imagine many other people would be proud of her if they knew she'd skipped out on the hearing.

The third?

Iraq War veteran Tulsi Gabbard took a pass on the hearing.  I'm told she's conflicted on what to support -- opposition to the AUMF or backing the AUMF -- so she skipped the hearing to buy more time.

If the three women aren't up to serving on the Committee, they need to be removed from the Committee -- removed and replaced by any woman or man willing to step up and attend the full Committee hearings on matters of war.

They dishonor the Committee, they fail their constituents.

This is unacceptable.

They're also letting down girls and women with this nonsense.

Let's get back to those who actually attended the hearing.


US House Rep Ron DeSantis:  Dr. Rand mentioned, I think accurately, that a lot of these Sunni tribes in Iraq -- and certainly, when I was serving there -- they're really not jihadists.  They're Sunni Arabs.  And if they think that -- back then -- AQI [al Qaeda in Iraq] was better than the deal they'd get with the central government, then they were out to do that.  And if they think it's a Shi'ite government, then that's going to push them further [away from the Iraqi government and towards a group against the Baghdad-based government].  So I guess my question is-is, if you look at the administration's policy, there's a clear attempt to have a major rapprochement with Iran, if you look at Yemen -- now could potentially be an Iranian-client state, the [Syrian President Bashar al-] Assad -- I know we've been through different machinations there, but I think the administration is content to leave Assad there.  And so, if you're just the average Sunni Arab wanting to figure out should you work with the Americans and whatever forces that we may be supporting or should you work with some of the Sunni jihadist groups?  If they see us as, uhm, facilitating Shi'ite domination of the region, isn't that going to push some of these Sunni Arabs who are not necessarily jihadists into the arms of the more radical Sunni groups.  Ambassador?

James Jeffrey: Absolutely.  Which is why we can't pick a side in the Sunni - Shia struggle anymore than we could pick a side in the Christian - Muslim struggle in the Balkins.  We have to have a set of values and friends who accept them and go after everybody who is violating them -- whether they're coming out of Mosul or they're coming out of Tehran or they're coming out of Damascus.

US House Rep Ron DeSantis:  So you have, for example, ISIS fighters threatening the outer Baghdad belts and you have Shi'ite militia groups -- which we've considered to be terrorists when we were in Iraq and that are supported by Iran's Quds Force -- some have said 'well there's kind of an alliance with the US.'  We're supporting some of the anti-ISIS forces in other parts of Iraq and we're essentially relying on the Iranian-backed forces to-to keep ISIS out of Baghdad.  Is that a sustainable strategy?

James Jeffrey:  Uh, in the long run no.  But there's a saying, you slay the wolf closest to sled.  Right now, when ISIS is moving forward, we should be working with anybody that can stop them.  But, uh, they really haven't moved forward anymore.  Now we have to figure out how to go get them.  That's really not with Shi'ite militias.



Let's note another exchange.

US House Rep Grace Meng: I sort of want to piggy back off of what Mr. [US House Rep Reid] Ribble had previously asked about what coalition members should be prepared to do to delegitimizing ISIS' ideology.  For example, a recent report indicated around 4,000 foreign fighters have joined ISIS since the airstrikes began.  Are there specific strategies that coalition members should be employing to further prevent the flow of foreign fighters into Syria and and Iraq?

[. . .]

James Jeffrey:  It's very interesting the types of political capital that's needed to be invested by leaders in the Arab and Muslim world to fight -- to counter radicalization, to counter ideology.  Some of the examples I mentioned earlier were the leaders in Saudi Arabia and Egypt have helped their clerics issue fatwas condemning ISIS' violence which is unprecedented.  There's also the importance of social media.  The United States' government is not the only government that has the technical capacity to sort of Tweet against ISIS.

[. . .]

Rick Brennan Jr.:  We missed a great opportunity in 2006 when the Maliki government needed us most and we did not press for reconciliation.  I think at this point and time, when the Iraqi government needs us that a part of our strategy has got to be -- and our support for them  has got to be honest to goodness reconciliation that is not going to walk away from as soon as the problem is over.

US House Rep Grace Meng:  Thank you.  And I'll try to answer my last question fast. Secretary Kerry previously testified that the US would be supplying the Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga going through Baghdad so as not to undermine the central government.  Has this arrangement prevented the Kurdish Peshmerga from getting what they need to effectively fight ISIS?  And how would the central government in Baghdad view an effort to provide military equipment directly to the Kurds?

James Jeffrey: Uh, it did prevent the transfer of equipment when I was Ambassador.  Uh, I don't have the statistics now but the Kurds certainly believe that it has.  They cite, as we heard earlier, only 25 of 100s of MRAP armored vehicles that have been provided to them.  And, uh, while there are some pretty good reasons why we're careful with the equipment we give them, the point is they are fighting, they are the allies of Baghdad and a lot of these weapons systems are no threat to Baghdad but they are a threat to ISIS and they should be flowing.


Earlier in the hearing, in reply to US House Rep Christopher Smith, Jeffrey stated, "In the case of Iraq, it's a bit complicated -- and it's very complicated about sending the Peshmerga into certain areas -- but certainly they deserve more support from us, they're doing well and I hope they get it."

The Washington Post's David Ignatius explored that topic this week and concluded:

The U.S. is counting on the Kurds to hold their ground against these killers while other Iraqi forces get trained. And that brings Barzani to his most important point: The Kurds need U.S. weapons, fast. In particular, they need armored personnel carriers and Humvees to protect their troops, tanks to repel enemy advances, night-vision goggles to detect sneak attacks, and small attack helicopters to defend a front that stretches 600 miles.

Barzani’s request seems reasonable, given the crucial role the peshmerga have played in this fight. The trick is to provide weapons to the Kurdish regional government in a way that doesn’t worsen Iraq’s sectarian divisions. Barzani says he would be happy to receive the weapons through the Iraqi government — so long as they’re actually delivered. That strikes me as the right solution, and it should be a priority for the Obama administration.



Friday morning Phil Black: And what we're now hearing from Iraqi officials is that the entire town is now under the control of ISIS.  It is yet another piece of land that they have grabbed.



No, that's not Phil Black reporting for CNN from last summer.

That's Phil Black (CNN) reported. "And what we're now hearing from Iraqi officials is that the entire town is now under the control of ISIS.  It is yet another piece of land that they have grabbed."
And that they grabbed a day after the witnesses before the House Foreign Affairs Committee insisted IS's efforts had been contained.

Heather Saul (Independent) explained, "ISIS militants seized control of parts of the western Iraqi town of al-Baghdadi, close to an air base where 320 US Marines are training Iraqi soldiers."  How close?  The headline says IS is "13 minutes away" from the base and CBS News reported:

Eight suicide bombers managed Friday to get onto a sprawling Iraqi military base where hundreds of U.S. Marines are training their Iraqi counterparts, but were killed by an ISF counter attack almost immediately.
Sean Ryan, chief of foreign affairs for the U.S.-led military coalition in Iraq, confirmed to CBS News that the attackers made it onto the secluded Ain al-Asad airbase west of Baghdad, but said the attackers made it "nowhere near" the American forces on the base before they were killed.


Phil Black adds that an unnamed US defense "official reiterated what has been said many times publicly by Pentagon officials: That U.S. forces retain the right to defend themselves if necessary, but at this point there have been no injuries to U.S. forces at the airbase and there is no change in status."
Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 179 dead from violence across Iraq on Friday.













iraq
cnn
phil black
francis a. boyle
antiwar.com
margaret griffis
the washington post
david ignatius
favorite


Posted by Sex And Politics and Screeds and Attitude at 2/14/2015 05:26:00 PM
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

2/13/2015

we do have the power

the fiscal times notes:


The debate over President Obama's authority to use the U.S. armed forces to fight ISIS in Iraq and Syria might just come down to the definition of the word "enduring."

of course this term is appalling.

'enduring'?

barack's pimping unlimited war and we need to reject it.

i don't know where the useless trash like leslie cagan is.

maybe she's getting her chin shaved?

but we need to stand up and make clear that we do not want more iraq war.

we don't need the so-called 'leaders' who were just whores.

they bailed on us and the iraqi people long ago.

we are the leaders we need and we can stand up, we can make clear to our congressional representatives that we don't want more war and that we will lash out at the voting booths against any politician that supports war.


let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'



Thursday, February 12, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, a military base in Iraq with US troops on it comes under attack, Antiwar.com calls for pressure to be put on Congress to reject President Barack Obama's AUMF request,  the House Foreign Affairs Committee addresses Iraq and the AUMF,  US House Rep Brian Higgins declares: "You know, let's just acknowledge that our investment of $25 billion in the Iraqi national army failed." and much more.


Yesterday, US President Barack Obama sent a written list of what he wanted from the Congress regarding his ongoing actions against Iraq and Syria that supposedly will defeat the Islamic State.  Since August 8th, he's been bombing Iraq and now he wants the US Congress to make it legal by passing an Authorization of Use of Military Force.

Joseph Kishore (WSWS) points out:

There are no geographical limits to the military action sanctioned by the resolution. Making clear the global framework of the new “war on ISIS,” Obama wrote in a letter to Congress that ISIS could “pose a threat beyond the Middle East, including to the United States homeland.”The inclusion of language ending the authorization in three years unless the resolution is renewed has as much significance as similar “sunset” provisions in the Patriot Act, which has been routinely reauthorized by Congress. In his announcement of the AUMF, Obama stressed that the three-year framework did not represent a “timetable” for military action and could be extended by Congress under his successor in the White House.
In an attempt to delude the American public, which is overwhelmingly opposed to war, that the new operations are to be limited in scope, the authorization states that it does not provide for “enduring offensive ground combat operations.” Again, the wording is formulated so as to allow virtually any type of military action. There is no definition of “enduring” or “offensive.”
Extended combat operations in Iraq, Syria or another country could be justified on the grounds that they were “defensive” or not “enduring.”
Obama claimed that the resolution “does not call for the deployment of US ground combat forces in Iraq and Syria.” This is simply a lie. Obama last year deployed 1,500 US troops to Iraq, many of which have already been involved in combat operations. The authorization would sanction a vast expansion of such operations.



Eric Garris (Antiwar.com) believes a huge public outcry could sink the request:




It’s time for a preemptive strike at the War Party’s congressional fortress. Please call your congressional representative today and urge them to vote no on the AUMF – because we can win this one. We stopped them last time when Obama decided it was time to bomb Syria. One by one members of Congress who were inclined to authorize that military campaign backed away when faced with a deluge of outraged calls from constituents. We can do it again – oh yes we can!
Please make that call today – because the future of this country, not to mention the peace of the world, depends on it.

And we need your help to stop this war before it starts. Your tax-deductible donation to Antiwar.com will give us the resources to stop the well-funded War Party in its tracks – but we can do it without you! Make your contribution today – because the future of our country. and the peace of the world, depends on it.


Could an outcry bury Barack's AUMF?

Today, US House Rep Lois Frankel wondered about what Barack was proposing, "Is military action the only thing?  How does humanitarian aid fit into this? Or educating women?  Is this the only way out?  And where does it leave us?  Who fills the void if we get ISIL?  I mean, I could ask a lot more questions."  She was speaking at the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing today.

There's also these comments from the hearing.


US House Rep Lee Zeldin:  The President in his original strategy back in September when he gave a speech, he was talking about dropping bombs and  reliance on Iraqi military and law enforcement to finish the job.  When I was in Iraq in 2006, it was an accomplishment to get them to show up to work.  Expecting no threat that day, getting them to show up to a precinct that's a quarter mile from their house.  We were trying to get them to show up.  So relying on elements on the ground who have no morale, no patriotism, they don't have the resources, they don't have the training, they don't have the will is something that we have to take into account.  In that speech, the President said this was going to be different than past wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because there will be no boots on the ground.  And, in the same exact speech, he says, "Tonight I'm announcing I'm sending 495 additional troops to Iraq.  Someone shows me a picture of their grandson in the Air Force.  He's in Baghdad. He's wearing the uniform.  He's carrying a rifle.  He's wearing boots.  Those boots are on the ground.  The use of this term 'boots on the ground' here in Washington?  The reality is that we have boots on the ground right now and I think we need to not worry about what polls say what wording sounds the best.


We'll come back to the hearing but Frankel and Zeldin's reaction and that of others certainly suggest that Eric Garris is making a valid argument that pressure can be brought to bear and have an effect.


In addition, David Sherfinski (Washington Times) reports on a Fox News poll which found 73% of respondents feel Barack's lacks "a clear strategy for defeating the Islamic State."   And David Espo and Matthew Daly (AP) report no one in Congress has yet stepped up to champion it.


Yesterday, Senator Bernie Sanders' office issued the following:


Contact:
Michael Briggs
(202) 224-5141

WASHINGTON, Feb. 11 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement today after President Barack Obama formally asked Congress to authorize a military campaign against the Islamic State terrorist group:
“The Islamic State is a brutal and dangerous terrorist organization which has murdered thousands of innocent men, women and children, including Americans. It must be defeated.
“I voted against the war in Iraq because I feared very much the destabilizing impact it would have on the region. Today, after 13 years in Afghanistan and 12 years in Iraq, after the loss of almost 7,000 troops and the expenditure of trillions of dollars, I very much fear U.S. involvement in an expanding and never-ending quagmire in that region of the world.
“I have supported U.S. airstrikes against ISIS and believe they are authorized under current law, and I support targeted U.S. military efforts to protect U.S. citizens.
“It is my firm belief, however, that the war against ISIS will never be won unless nations in the Middle East step up their military efforts and take more responsibility for the security and stability of their region. The United States and other western powers should support our Middle East allies, but this war will never be won unless Muslim nations in the region lead that fight.
“It is worth remembering that Saudi Arabia, for example, is a nation controlled by one of the wealthiest families in the world and has the fourth largest military budget of any nation. This is a war for the soul of Islam and the Muslim nations must become more heavily engaged.

“I oppose sending U.S. ground troops into combat in another bloody war in the Middle East. I therefore cannot support the resolution in its current form without clearer limitations on the role of U.S. combat troops.”


Senator Tim Kaine's office issued the following today:



WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Tim Kaine released the following statement on the draft Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against ISIL announced by President Obama today. For more than seven months, Kaine has been a leading voice urging the administration to seek a specific authorization for military action against ISIL while pressing his Congressional colleagues to debate and vote on the mission – a mission he believes goes beyond the intent of existing authorizations from 2001 and 2002.
“I applaud President Obama for taking this important step in defining the United States’ role in the multinational effort to defeat ISIL. With the Administration’s decision to submit a written proposal and formally seek Congressional authorization, we can now focus on having the proper debate and vote the American people and our servicemembers deserve.

“The administration’s draft authorization reflects consultations with Congress and includes many provisions I support, such as a repeal of the 2002 authorization and a 3-year sunset.  But I am concerned about the breadth and vagueness of the U.S. ground troop language and will seek to clarify it. As the Foreign Relations Committee prepares to take up this draft authorization, I look forward to a robust debate, along with amendments and votes, that will inform the American public about our mission and further refine this authorization to ensure that the U.S. is vigorously assisting nations willing to battle their own terrorist threat rather than carrying the unsustainable burden of policing a region that won't police itself.” 


And today US House Rep Adam Schiff's office issued the following:



Washington, DC –Today, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) and author of legislation providing a limited and narrow authorization for use of military force against ISIL, released the following statement:
“The Administration’s engagement with Congress on a new authorization for use of military force against ISIL has been enormously beneficial and should jumpstart Congressional action. With the receipt of specific language from the President, Congress has run out of excuses for any further delay of a debate and vote on a new authorization.
“The Administration has been carefully considering how to craft an authorization of our mission against ISIL and I believe its proposal contains important limiting provisions – including a three year sunset and an immediate repeal of the 2002 Iraq AUMF – but there are some key aspects of the proposal which I believe must be narrowed further. In particular, a new authorization should also include a sunset of the 2001 AUMF; without one, any sunset of the new authorization will be ineffectual, since the next president can claim continued reliance on the old one.  Such a result would fail to meet the goal set by the President last summer when he argued that that the old authorization should be refined and ultimately repealed. Additionally, a new authorization should place more specific limits on the use of ground troops to ensure we do not authorize another major ground war without the President coming to Congress to make the case for one.
"There are additional concerns over the lack of a geographic limitation and a broad definition of associated forces which will also be the subject of debate. In the days ahead, I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to build on the President's proposal and provide a properly-tailored authorization for the war against ISIL.”



But for those who showed leadership, there were also those who cowered.


Once upon a time, many years ago, Tammy Baldwin was a member of the House of Representatives and stood against the Iraq War.  Today?  She's in the Senate and "pleased" (her term) with Barack's request, This despite having a few 'concerns': "I’m concerned that the vague language of the Administration’s draft proposal may leave the door open to putting boots on the ground for combat operations and put the United States at risk of repeating the mistakes of the past and becoming bogged down in an open-ended conflict. I’m also concerned that the draft AUMF would authorize action for 3 years without establishing measurable goals, benchmarks of success and a clear scope  in the battle against ISIL."

Also crawling on her belly is US House Rep Barbara Lee who is "pleased" as in, "I am pleased that the proposed authorization includes a repeal of the misguided 2002 AUMF, that authorized an unnecessary and disastrous war in Iraq."  And she's also "glad" -- "Additionally, I am glad the proposed authorization includes language recognizing the vital role that a comprehensive, diplomatic, economic and political solution must play in ultimately degrading and dismantling ISIL."  She has a few reservations and even insists that she "will keep fighting to repeal  the 2001 AUMF, a blank check for endless war."  Yeah, she's claimed to be fighting that fight since 2009.  She's not progressed one bit on it.  But then she really doesn't care to while Barack's in office.


Today the US House Foreign Affairs Committee addressed the topic of Islamic State. The witnesses appearing before the committee included former US Ambassador James Jeffrey, the Center for a New American Security's Dafna H. Rand and RAND Corporation's Rick Brennan.  US House Rep Ed Royce is the Chair of the Committee and US House Rep Eliot Engel is the Ranking Member.


US House Rep Brad Sherman: I believe ISIS is a lesser threat to the United States than the Shi'ite alliance [reference to Iran's Shi'ite fighters].  Ground troops, if necessary to take the territory, will be necessary to hold the territory.  The [Kurdish] Peshmerga are not going to be welcome in Sunni Arab area and the Iraqi army?  We saw what they did.  It was the greatest transfer of weaponry to a terrorist organization in history.  The Iraqi government has some effective fighting units.  They are the Shi'ite militias that have engaged in murderous ethnic cleansing of Sunnis -- under-reported in the American press.  And so I don't see who we have that will be a ground force to take Sunni areas.  I do know that I don't want to have to vote to have American soldiers going house-to-house in Mosul in a bloody hand-to-hand role because no other ground forces are available.  As to the AUMF, we've got the text the President sent over, leaves in place the 2001 AUMF.  In effect, republishes it, reaffirms it.  Well what is that that we would be reaffirming 15 years later?  Unlimited in time. Unlimited in what weapons or tactics or ground forces.  It authorized over 100,000 forces in Afghanistan last decade.  It would authorize over 100,000 US soldiers to be deployed on the ground next decade.  And, of course, unlimited in geography.  So if we republish, rather than repeal, that it's hard to say that the President doesn't have enough authority to do all the things that many of us hope he does not do.  And then as to the timing issue?  If Congress is doing its job and there's a three year AUMF, after two years we pass something else rather than waiting for two days while we have soldiers in the field wondering whether Congress will pass the bill.

Serious objections were raised throughout the hearing, serious issues with what Barack is requesting.


US House Rep Dana Rohrabacher:  I personally will not -- I don't believe I can speak for my colleagues -- but I will not be giving the President of the United States -- and I don't think the Congress will give the President of the United States -- a blank check on the use of American military force in the Arab world or in the Gulf -- where ever it is.  And, by the way, it's maybe not specific enough in the territory -- much less the timing of this. We're not going to give him a blank check for a given period of time.  We need to know exactly if that means that he would be willing to commit major forces on the ground or not.  That needs to be part of any agreement we have.  So I don't see this being: Oh, the president's asking? Thus he's going to get whatever he wants. We need to work this out.  We need to work out the details.  I personally don't believe this is going to be settled by the military.  When we eliminated the Soviet Union -- which was then the ultimate threat to peace and stability in the world, it was done not by the deployment of large numbers of troops.  And we need to create a dynamic that will end up with the defeat of this threat to western civilization.  We need to create that dynamic.  And that means what we did to defeat Communism.  We made that our number one goal and we worked with anybody who would work with us to defeat that goal.  And that made it possible for us, by the way, to defeat them without conflict -- direct military conflict -- with the United States. Let me just note that I think the President of the United States has not reached out -- we've already heard about the Kurds and other people and other groups in the world and especially in that region who should be our best friends and mobilize them in this effort -- whether it's General [Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-] Sisi, the people who marched against radical Islam in Tehran where the president couldn't get himself to say anything about that -- in support of those kids in Iran.  So we need to have that dynamic created other than just having the President come to us and asking us for military -- for a military blank check.




We will note the hearing in the next Iraq snapshot (I plan to include US House Rep Alan Grayson in the next snapshot, for example).  But we'll close our coverage of the hearing tonight with these comments.

US House Rep Brian Higgins: It amazes me in all of these hearings how quickly we just kind of bypass the fact that the United States paid about $25 billion to build up an Iraqi army and the first test of that army was against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and they essentially ran.  And we are told that the reason that they were not committed to the fight was because the previous prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, was not inclusive of the Sunni population and therefore didn't feel as though it was a fight worth committing to.  And now were told that there's a new prime minister who's also a Shia but more inclusive [chuckles] of the Sunni community and therefore we should have confidence again in the Iraq national army.  $25 billion.  Thousands of lives lost. And no commitment?  Who are the most effective fighters in Iraq today? The Peshmerga -- 190,000.  And the Shia militia.  The new prime minister [Haider al-Abadi] had said that there are about a million Shia militias who are trying to fill the void of the ineffectual Iraqi army.  Mr Brennan, you had said earlier, you talked about the Shia militias who recently experienced success against ISIS.  You also made reference to Qasem Soleimani -- the Iranian Quds forces leader who really negotiated [chuckles] the second term of Nouri al-Maliki with one condition -- that the Americans leave.  That the Americans leave.  And now we have a president's resolution before Congress asking to engage again militarily.  You know, the Shia militias are not there to prop up the Iraqi government.  They're there to do what Soleimani and others in asymmetrical war fare try to do and that is to create a proxy in places they want to control -- be it in southern Lebanon, be it in Syria, or be it in Iraq.  My concern is that if we commit American forces -- and there's no pacifist wing of the American military -- everybody has weapons and everybody fights and they die courageously when they do -- we are continuing a situation in this country that has been going on for way too long.  You know, what Tom Friedman -- the author and New York Times columnist, once said. "Is Iraq the way it is because Saddam the way he is or is Saddam the way he is because Iraq is the way it is?"  And I think it just speaks again to the sectarian, tribal nature of a place that we are trying to impose a political solution to.  You know, we are told [chuckles] that the American military with extraordinary courage, extraordinary commitment, extraordinary effectiveness could only do one thing: Create a breathing space within which the Shia, Sunni and Kurdish community could achieve political reconciliation including the sharing of oil revenues.  And we saw a hopeful sign in December that that was occurring between the central government in Baghdad and Kurdistan with the 17%  sharing of the national revenues and also a billion dollars to equip and train the Peshmerga.  But I will tell you where our investment has been made financially, where our investment has been made morally has been an abject failure.  And what we're proposing to do with this resolution by the President is continue that failed policy without any clarity about what it is that we're going to achieve because when there's no political center -- here's what we know in that part of the world -- when there's no political center there's only sides to choose.  And right now there is no political center.  And don't argue that the changing of a Shia prime minister in Iraq is going to fundamentally change the will and the commitment of the Iraqi national army.  You know, let's just acknowledge that our investment of $25 billion in the Iraqi national army failed.  Failed miserably.  Because when you say they all ran -- 250,000 of them -- in the face of 30,000 ISIS fighters, well certainly because Iraq is a majority-Shi'ite country, many of those fighters would be Shia. So at least they wouldn't run.  So I don't know really what's going on here but I know where this is leading and I think most Americans know where this is leading.  It's not to a good place because, again, America is essentially going it alone for the third time in two different countries and unless there's a recognition of minority rights, unless there's a recognition of the pluralistic nature of Iraq, there will never be peace there. 

Higgins, like many, used their entire time to address the AUMF.  Whether Committee members didn't think it goes far enough or they feel that it needs to be stated that US troops will not be in on the ground combat or whether they feel that the plan or 'plan' doesn't address the real root causes of the crises, there was clear resistance to what Barack is asking for.

On another note, stupidity came from RAND via witness Brennan who at one point wasted everyone's time instructing that the Islamic State should not be called that because they don't represent Islam (then he allowed they represent some form of it) and we should show solidarity.

In lying?

Everyone calls the Hell's Angels the "Hell's Angels."  No one really thinks they are angels or that they are from hell.  Similarly, the cult Heaven's Gate -- who took part in a mass suicide back in 1997 -- was not from Heaven or a gate to it.  But that was their name so that's what they were called.

I understand what Brennan's getting at.

I also think it's extremely stupid to 'brand' others and doesn't increase tolerance or understanding but does increase labeling people "the other."

A group -- terrorist or civic -- should have the name they themselves designate.

I'm not willing to live in a world where Brennan gets to dictate the lexicon based upon his own personal whims and fears.


There are US troops in Iraq today.

They've been under fire -- even the Pentagon admits that -- from mortar attacks.  Canada was just sending 'trainers' as well but those Canadian forces have now twice been in combat on the ground in Iraq.


Loveday Morris and Mustafa Salim (Washington Post) report:

Islamic State militants seized parts of a town in Iraq’s western province of Anbar on Thursday, sparking fierce fighting within miles of a military base where hundreds of U.S. advisers are stationed.

Anbar’s provincial council called for “immediate and urgent military reinforcements” after the attack on the town of al-Baghdadi, which began in the early morning. Ayn al-Asad air base — where some 320 U.S. personnel have been training Iraqi troops and tribal fighters — lies five miles west of the town.


Reuters reports it wasn't just an attack near the base, fighters also "attacked the heavily-guarded Ain al-Asad air base five km southwest of the town, but were unable to break into it.  About 320 U.S. Marines are training members of the Iraqi 7th Division at the base, which has been struck by mortrar fire on at least one previous occasion since December."

In addition, Xinhua reports battles in Salahudin Province today left 16 Iraqi forces dead.  Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 57 dead from violence across Iraq.



Senator Patty Murray is the former Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and the Senate Budget Committee.  Her office issued the following today:




FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                            CONTACT: Murray's Press Office

Thursday, February 12, 2015                                       (202) 224-2834
 
Senator Murray’s Statement on the Confirmation of Defense Secretary Ashton Carter
 
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray released the following statement after voting to confirm Ashton Carter to be United States Secretary of Defense. Carter was confirmed by the Senate on an 93-5 vote.
 
“Secretary Carter has a tough job ahead of him, but I am confident that he is the right person to get it done. I look forward to working with him to make sure our troops are getting the care and support they deserve, our national security is prioritized and protected, and we continue to invest in national and Washington state defense priorities.
 
“I met with Secretary Carter this week and talked to him about his plans to protect our troops, fight terrorists wherever they are, and keep our country truly safe over the long term. We discussed the devastating impact of sequestration on defense and non-defense investments and jobs. I also raised the importance of protecting our military units, bases, and communities in Washington state, which are critical to our nation’s readiness and national security strength.
 
“I am looking forward to working with Secretary Carter to make sure our military is strong, our nation is secure, and our troops have the equipment they need to stay safe and complete their missions.”
 
###
 
--
Eli Zupnick
Communications Director
U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA)
(202) 224-2834
Eli_Zupnick@murray.senate.gov


@elizupnick









iraq
antiwar.com
the washington post
loveday morris
xinhua
Posted by Sex And Politics and Screeds and Attitude at 2/13/2015 03:41:00 AM
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

2/12/2015

the liar barack

at wsws, joseph kishore notes:


The entire proposal is thoroughly cynical, a pseudo-legal fig leaf to provide political cover for an illegal war. The way that the new authorization has been proposed—including a perfunctory White House announcement held in the middle of the afternoon—underscores the contempt of the political establishment for basic democratic procedures and the will of the American people. All decisions on military action are made behind the scenes by a cabal of military and intelligence officials, with Obama as their spokesman.
As recently as 2002, in advance of the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq, the political establishment felt it necessary to go through the motions of a Senate debate and vote, with a presentation of supposed facts (i.e., fabrications) and arguments to justify war. Now, wars and military operations are simply launched and presented to the population as a fait accompli.
The proposed congressional authorization for war against ISIS comes nearly half a year after the Obama administration initiated bombing in Iraq and Syria. There have already been at least 2,000 air strikes in this latest round of the US drive to conquer the Middle East.
The war authorization request marks the latest stage in the long and tragic encounter of the peoples of the Middle East with US imperialism. The White House proposal would repeal the 2002 authorization for military force in Iraq, which, following the 1991 Gulf War and a decade of brutal sanctions, was used to invade Iraq and initiate a war that led to the deaths of over one million Iraqis and laid waste to the entire country. ISIS itself is a product of this devastation as well as US support for Islamic fundamentalist forces that have served as proxies in the US-led wars to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya and oust Bashar al-Assad in Syria.
In asking for the new authorization, Obama was at pains to insist he did not need it, and that strikes would continue regardless. “Existing statutes provide me with the authority I need,” he wrote in his letter to Congress.



what a betrayal of everything he 1st ran for the presidency on.

what a liar.

what a fake.

2019 can't come soon enough if you ask me.


let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'



Wednesday, February 11, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, Barack Obama wants more war and longer war and wider war, Foreign Policy In Focus and Ron Paul are two who notice, the US Secretary of Veterans Affairs insults a veteran publicly and questions the value of the veteran's service, US Senator Patty Murray continues fighting for veterans including those wounded while serving who need assistance with starting families, and much more.



Let's start with some basics the White House advanced today:



1. What is an AUMF?
An AUMF, or authorization of use of military force, is a law passed by Congress that authorizes the President to use U.S. military force.  
2. What is the President’s proposal for an AUMF against ISIL? 
The President is submitting a draft of an AUMF to Congress to authorize the continued limited use of military force to degrade and defeat ISIL. Key elements of the President’s proposal include:
  • A three-year limit on the AUMF so that the next President, Congress, and the American people can assess the progress we have made against ISIL and review these authorities again
  • A repeal of the 2002 Iraq AUMF which authorized the 2003 Iraq invasion under President George W. Bush
It’s important to note that the AUMF the President is proposing would not authorize long-term, large-scale ground combat operations like those our nation conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan. His proposal does seek the flexibility to conduct ground operations in other, more limited circumstances, including:

  • Rescue operations involving U.S. or coalition personnel
  • Special Operations missions against ISIL leadership
  • Intelligence collection and assistance to partner forces


A three year limit?  That would be February 2018.  Barack wouldn't be in the White House.

Probably more importantly, when does a so-called 'limit' mean forces leave a country?


The Status of Forces Agreement that Bully Boy Bush's administration negotiated with then-Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki had a limit.  At the end of three years, the contract expired unless something new came along to replace it.

Nothing new came along.

So US forces all left Iraq and are out of the country now.


Oh, wait, that's not what happened.  Special-Ops were among the troops who remained in Iraq after the December 2011 drawdown and over 15,000 troops in Iraq were instead sent into Kuwait in case they needed to go back in.

And there's been no authorization for the special-ops brigade Barack sent in during the fall of 2012 or all the US troops he's sent in since June.


So let's just all be honest, the 'three year limit' is meaningless.  In three years, those wanting the US forces to remain in will insist that deaths were in vain otherwise and possibly that those calling for troops out of Iraq are actually unAmerican, unpatriotic and shouldn't voice opinions while troops are in harms way.

The three year limit is not to protect Iraq.

It is not to protect US forces.

It exists for one reason only: So Barack can push the blame off on someone else since the decision three years from now will be pushed off on others.

And for those dwindling few who remain members of The Cult of St. Barack, it's not just me saying this, it's also your sainted leader who declared today, "It is not a timetable.  It is not announcing that the mission is completed at any given period.  What it is saying is that Congress should revisit the issue at the beginning of the next President’s term."


Get it?

He should be ashamed of himself and someone should go back and count how many times he publicly used the term "kick the can" in 2007 and 2008 as he insulted those who refused to confront a problem but instead "kicked the can" down the road and left it for someone to solve later on.

He spoke on the topic this afternoon.  Here are his remarks in full:

  THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon.  Today, as part of an international coalition of some 60 nations -- including Arab countries -- our men and women in uniform continue the fight against ISIL in Iraq and in Syria.  
More than 2,000 coalition airstrikes have pounded these terrorists.  We’re disrupting their command and control and supply lines, making it harder for them to move.  We’re destroying their fighting positions, their tanks, their vehicles, their barracks, their training camps, and the oil and gas facilities and infrastructure that fund their operations.  We’re taking out their commanders, their fighters, and their leaders.  
In Iraq, local forces have largely held the line and in some places have pushed ISIL back.  In Syria, ISIL failed in its major push to take the town of Kobani, losing countless fighters in the process -- fighters who will never again threaten innocent civilians.  And we’ve seen reports of sinking morale among ISIL fighters as they realize the futility of their cause.    
Now, make no mistake -- this is a difficult mission, and it will remain difficult for some time.  It’s going to take time to dislodge these terrorists, especially from urban areas.  But our coalition is on the offensive, ISIL is on the defensive, and ISIL is going to lose.  Its barbaric murders of so many people, including American hostages, are a desperate and revolting attempt to strike fear in the hearts of people it can never possibly win over by its ideas or its ideology -- because it offers nothing but misery and death and destruction.  And with vile groups like this, there is only one option:  With our allies and partners, we are going to degrade and ultimately destroy this terrorist group. 
And when I announced our strategy against ISIL in September, I said that we are strongest as a nation when the President and Congress work together.  Today, my administration submitted a draft resolution to Congress to authorize the use of force against ISIL.  I want to be very clear about what it does and what it does not do.
This resolution reflects our core objective to destroy ISIL.  It supports the comprehensive strategy that we have been pursuing with our allies and partners:  A systemic and sustained campaign of airstrikes against ISIL in Iraq and Syria.  Support and training for local forces on the ground, including the moderate Syrian opposition.  Preventing ISIL attacks, in the region and beyond, including by foreign terrorist fighters who try to threaten our countries.  Regional and international support for an inclusive Iraqi government that unites the Iraqi people and strengthens Iraqi forces against ISIL.  Humanitarian assistance for the innocent civilians of Iraq and Syria, who are suffering so terribly under ISIL’s reign of horror.  
I want to thank Vice President Biden, Secretaries Kerry and Hagel, and General Marty Dempsey for their leadership in advancing our strategy.  Even as we meet this challenge in Iraq and Syria, we all agree that one of our weapons against terrorists like ISIL -- a critical part of our strategy -- is the values we live here at home.  One of the best antidotes to the hateful ideologies that try to recruit and radicalize people to violent extremism is our own example as diverse and tolerant societies that welcome the contributions of all people, including people of all faiths.
The resolution we’ve submitted today does not call for the deployment of U.S. ground combat forces to Iraq or Syria.  It is not the authorization of another ground war, like Afghanistan or Iraq.  The 2,600 American troops in Iraq today largely serve on bases -- and, yes, they face the risks that come with service in any dangerous environment.  But they do not have a combat mission.  They are focused on training Iraqi forces, including Kurdish forces.  
As I’ve said before, I’m convinced that the United States should not get dragged back into another prolonged ground war in the Middle East.  That’s not in our national security interest and it’s not necessary for us to defeat ISIL.  Local forces on the ground who know their countries best are best positioned to take the ground fight to ISIL -- and that’s what they’re doing.    
At the same time, this resolution strikes the necessary balance by giving us the flexibility we need for unforeseen circumstances.  For example, if we had actionable intelligence about a gathering of ISIL leaders, and our partners didn’t have the capacity to get them, I would be prepared to order our Special Forces to take action, because I will not allow these terrorists to have a safe haven.  So we need flexibility, but we also have to be careful and deliberate.  And there is no heavier decision than asking our men and women in uniform to risk their lives on our behalf.  As Commander in Chief, I will only send our troops into harm’s way when it is absolutely necessary for our national security.  
Finally, this resolution repeals the 2002 authorization of force for the invasion of Iraq and limits this new authorization to three years.  I do not believe America’s interests are served by endless war, or by remaining on a perpetual war footing.  As a nation, we need to ask the difficult and necessary questions about when, why and how we use military force.  After all, it is our troops who bear the costs of our decisions, and we owe them a clear strategy and the support they need to get the job done.  So this resolution will give our armed forces and our coalition the continuity we need for the next three years.  
It is not a timetable.  It is not announcing that the mission is completed at any given period.  What it is saying is that Congress should revisit the issue at the beginning of the next President’s term.  It’s conceivable that the mission is completed earlier.  It’s conceivable that after deliberation, debate and evaluation, that there are additional tasks to be carried out in this area.  And the people’s representatives, with a new President, should be able to have that discussion.
In closing, I want to say that in crafting this resolution we have consulted with, and listened to, both Republicans and Democrats in Congress.  We have made a sincere effort to address difficult issues that we’ve discussed together.  In the days and weeks ahead, we’ll continue to work closely with leaders and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.  I believe this resolution can grow even stronger with the thoughtful and dignified debate that this moment demands.  I’m optimistic that it can win strong bipartisan support, and that we can show our troops and the world that Americans are united in this mission.   
Today, our men and women in uniform continue the fight against ISIL, and we salute them for their courageous service.  We pray for their safety.  We stand with their families who miss them and who are sacrificing here at home.  But know this:  Our coalition is strong, our cause is just, and our mission will succeed.  And long after the terrorists we face today are destroyed and forgotten, America will continue to stand free and tall and strong.  
May God bless our troops, and may God bless the United States of America.  Thank you very much, everybody.




That's what he's saying today.  As he prepares to send US forces into combat.

And what did he say in June?

June 13, 2014, he stated:


We will not be sending U.S. troops back into combat in Iraq, but I have asked my national security team to prepare a range of other options that could help support Iraqi security forces, and I’ll be reviewing those options in the days ahead.


Today?  He stated:

The resolution we’ve submitted today does not call for the deployment of U.S. ground combat forces to Iraq or Syria.  It is not the authorization of another ground war, like Afghanistan or Iraq.  The 2,600 American troops in Iraq today largely serve on bases -- and, yes, they face the risks that come with service in any dangerous environment.  But they do not have a combat mission.  They are focused on training Iraqi forces, including Kurdish forces.  


It doesn't call for it because Democrats in Congress threatened to stage a mutiny.


Barack had already sent US Secretary of State John Kerry to Congress, specifically the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (which Kerry used to Chair) December 9th to argue that Congress must include granting Barack the right to put US troops in on the ground combat in Iraq or Congress would "bind the hands of the commander in chief [and] our commanders in the field."


Reality, it's not needed.

It's never been needed.

If Congress gives Barack -- or any president -- an authorization for war, that's it.

As commander-in-chief of the US military, he then executes the war.

If he wants troops in combat, he gets them with no need of Congressional approval.

Barack knows that.

John Kerry knows that.

What was the December 9th plea about?

Trying to spread the blame around.

Trying to say Congress wanted it.

Barack takes neither responsibility nor accountability.

If you haven't noticed that by now, you're either in a coma or in The Cult of St. Barack.


Someone who is paying attention is Peter Certo (Foreign Policy In Focus) whose breakdown of the request includes:



As an ardent supporter of “hamstringing the commander in chief” in this particular case, let me count the ways that my concerns have not been eased by this resolution.
1. Its vague wording will almost certainly be abused.
For one thing, the administration has couched its limitations on the use of ground forces in some curiously porous language.
How long is an “enduring” engagement, for example? A week? A year? The full three years of the authorization and beyond?
And what’s an “offensive” operation if not one that involves invading another country? The resolution’s introduction claims outright that U.S. strikes against ISIS are justified by America’s “inherent right of individual and collective self-defense.” If Obama considers the whole war “inherently defensive,” does the proscription against “offensive” operations even apply?
And what counts as “combat”? In his last State of the Union address, Obama proclaimed that “our combat mission in Afghanistan is over.” But only two months earlier, he’d quietly extended the mission of nearly 10,000 U.S. troops in the country for at least another year. So the word seems meaningless.
In short, the limitation on ground troops is no limitation at all. “What they have in mind,” said California Democrat Adam Schiff, “is still fairly broad and subject to such wide interpretation that it could be used in almost any context.”
Any context? Yep. Because it’s not just the ISIS heartland we’re talking about.
2. It would authorize war anywhere on the planet.
For the past six months, we’ve been dropping bombs on Iraq and Syria. But the draft resolution doesn’t limit the authorization to those two countries. Indeed, the text makes no mention of any geographic limitations at all.
That could set the United States up for war in a huge swath of the Middle East. Immediate targets would likely include Jordan or Lebanon, where ISIS forces have hovered on the periphery and occasionally launched cross-border incursions. But it could also rope in countries like Libya or Yemen, where ISIS knockoff groups that don’t necessarily have any connection to the fighters in Iraq and Syria have set up shop.
This is no theoretical concern. The Obama administration has used Congress’ post-9/11 war authorization — which specifically targeted only the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks and their patrons and supporters — to target a broad array of nominally “associated forces” in a stretch of the globe reaching from Somalia to the Philippines.
In fact, the administration has used the very same 2001 resolution to justify its current intervention in Iraq and Syria — the very war this new resolution is supposed to be authorizing.
How does the new resolution handle that? 




Will others note the problems or are we on the left going to yet again fall into a collective silence to protect Sainted Barack?


Well one just has.  Antiwar.com just posted former US House Rep Ron Paul's column which includes:



The new authorization explicitly does not impose geographic limits on the use of troops anywhere in the world and expands the definition of ISIS to that of all “associated forces.” A grant of this authority will do nothing to limit our dangerous involvement in these constant Middle East wars.

The war propagandists are very active and are winning over the support of many unsuspecting American citizens. It is not difficult to motivate resistance against an organization like ISIS that engages in such evil displays of horrific violence.

We have been fighting in the Middle East for 25 years. There have been no victories and no “mission accomplished.” Many needless deaths and dollars have been spent and yet we never reassess our policies of foreign interventionism. One would think after the humiliating defeat of the Republicans in 2008, as a reaction to the disastrous foreign policy of George W. Bush, that the American people would be more cautious in granting support to expanding our military presence in that region.

One thing that's been repeatedly noticed in the last years is that the administration has serious issues with accountability and, when questioned by Congress, gets nasty and rude.


Eric Holder's lost in front of Congress repeatedly, John Kerry's been embarrassing and of course Hillary started yelling and screaming like a beast culminating in her infamous January 23, 2013 snarl of "What difference at this point does it make!"  [See the  January 23, 2013 snapshot., the January 24, 2013 snapshot,  Wally's "Facts matter, Hillary (Wally),"   Ava's  "20 are still at risk says Hillary in an aside (Ava)," Ruth's "Like watching Richard Nixon come back to life" and Kat's  "Can she not answer even one damn question?"]

But today's House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing found a witness who may have topped all of that combined.
 
This morning, the full Committee explored the VA's budget request for FY2016.  Among those offering testimony was VA Secretary Robert McDonald who lost it in an exchange with US House Rep Mike Coffman and snarled, "I've run a large company, sir.  What have you done?"

Coffman did a slow burn.

McDonald may have felt he'd won but he didn't win.

Coffman's a former Marine.  

Coffman served in the Gulf War and the Iraq War. 

The fact that McDonald is the Secretary of Veterans Affairs makes the rudeness all the more appalling.


Though he refused to lower himself to McDonald's level in the hearing, Coffman did post a statement on his Facebook page:


7 hrs ·
Let me start by telling you something I haven't done. I have never run a federal agency that tolerates corruption the way the VA has. I've never built a hospital that's years behind schedule and hundreds of millions over budget. And I've never been a shill for inept bureaucrats who allowed American heroes to die on a medical waiting list while waiting for medical service. This is the most arrogant administration in our lifetime. Most would apologize for a scandal committed against our military service men and women. This administration is seemingly incapable of feeling shame.
VA Secretary Asks Only Member of Congress to Serve in Both Iraq Wars, ‘What Have You Done?’
Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert McDonald lost his cool in a House hearing Wednesday after Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.) asked him questions about huge...
www.theblaze.com
Like · Comment ·  Share

I do not think it plays well for the administration -- for any administration -- when their officials act arrogant and rude before Congress.

The Congress is supposed to be the voice of the people.  So when you show them disrespect, by proxy, you're showing disrespect to the citizens across the country.

I'm referring to government officials here -- federal government.  Private citizens, state employees, what have you can act however they want before the US Congress.

But federal officials whose salaries are paid by US taxpayers need to conduct themselves appropriately.


Robert McDonald did not do that today.


Worse, he attacked a veteran.

I'm sure he had no idea.

I don't believe any VA Secretary would ever be so stupid as to attack a veteran and question their service.

McDonald needs to publicly apologize or he needs to grasp that he will face the wrath of veterans who will not think it appropriate that the Secretary of the VA has questioned -- unknowingly, I believe -- the worth of military service.


On the topic of veterans, Senator Patty Murray continues to fight for an equal playing field for the veterans of today's wars.  Her office issued the following today:


     
       
      cid:image001.jpg@01D03563.7C0681A0
       
      FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                 CONTACT: Murray Press Office
      Wednesday, February 11, 2015                                                            (202) 224-2834

      VETERANS: Murray Introduces Bill to Cover Reproductive Services for Injured Servicemembers, Veterans, and Their Families
       
      **Murray plans to introduce bill with speech on Senate floor at 11am PT/2pm ET TODAY**
       
      Murray bill would expand DoD’s current fertility treatment programs, end VA ban on in vitro fertilization (IVF)
       
      Murray: “The men and women who serve in our military put their lives and bodies on the line for our country, and the least we can do is provide them with the health care services they need when they get home, including access to fertility treatments”
       
      (Washington, D.C.) Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) introduced a bill to allow the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Department of Defense (DoD) to provide reproductive services, such as in vitro fertilization (IVF), to servicemembers, veterans and their families who have suffered catastrophic wounds of war that prevent them from starting families.  The Women Veterans and Families Health Services Act of 2015 would expand the current fertility services offered to servicemembers and their families by DoD, and end the ban on in vitro fertilization services at the VA.
       
      “The men and women who serve in our military put their lives and bodies on the line for our country, and the least we can do is provide them with the health care services they need when they get home, including access to fertility treatments,” said Senator Murray, a senior member of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee. “Because of outdated policies at the Pentagon and the VA, thousands of seriously ill or injured veterans cannot access reproductive services like in vitro fertilization, which can cost tens of thousands of dollars from private providers. When we send men and women to war, we promise to take care of them when they return home.  That’s why I’ve introduced legislation to fill this shocking gap in care for our seriously injured servicemembers and veterans.”
       
      Read the one-pager here: http://www.murray.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/5d39b1c7-ec65-4d6a-a8e5-b7c0888fd3ab/wvfhsa-one-pager.pdf
       
      After more than a decade of war, thousands of servicemembers and veterans struggle with fertility and reproductive health. While VA and DoD offer some forms of fertility treatment and counseling, far too often they fail to meet the needs of these seriously injured servicemembers and veterans. Today, severely injured servicemembers are faced with the choice of pursuing these treatments before separation or paying tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket later.  Severely injured veterans do not have a choice at all. The cost of IVF treatments is about $7,000 per cycle within the Military Health System, but almost doubles to $12,400 (and above) per cycle for civilians or veterans who currently cannot receive these services from VA because of the ban.
       
      Data from DoD shows that between 2003 and 2013, more than 2,300 servicemembers have suffered reproductive and urinary tract trauma. The reliance on foot patrols in Afghanistan and the prevalence of improvised explosive devices has left servicemembers far more susceptible to these injuries.
       
      Though DoD currently provides IVF, too many servicemembers are excluded from eligibility for this and other treatments. The VA is completely barred from providing IVF services because of an outdated law. Senator Murray’s bill would expand VA and DoD’s current fertility treatment and counseling offerings and empower severely injured servicemembers and veterans to start families when the time is right for them. The bill would lift VA’s assisted reproductive technology (ART) ban (of which IVF is the most popular and successful treatment) and expand ART treatments beyond DoD’s current policy limitations. Senator Murray’s bill would also provide access to fertility treatment for spouses, allow VA to provide adoption assistance, and make permanent the highly successful child care pilot program in VA.
       
       
      ###
       
       
      Leah Kennebeck
      Deputy Press Secretary
      Office of U.S. Senator Patty Murray
      202-224-2834
       
      Get Updates from Senator Murray
      @PattyMurray
        






      Lastly, violence continued in Iraq today, of course.  Iraqi Spring MC reports 3 young men have been kidnapped in Baquba with one being Omar Yassin, nephew of MP Raad al-Aldhlki.  Alsumaria reports 2 suicide car bombers attacked an Iraqi military base outside Tikrit killing 2 security forces and injuring thirteen more, a suicide bomber south of Tikrit took his own life and the life of 1 Iraqi police member leaving five more injured, a sticky bombing south of Baghdad left one person injured, a rocket attack north of Baghdad left 1 person dead and four more injured, a Muthanna suicide car bomber left thirty people dead or wounded, a northwest Baghdad mortar attack left seven people injured, and, dropping back to last night, the bombing of 2 homes in Yahtrib left five people injures.









      iraq
      iraqi spring mc
      alsumaria
      Posted by Sex And Politics and Screeds and Attitude at 2/12/2015 02:50:00 AM
      Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
      Newer Posts Older Posts Home
      Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

      Followers

      About Me

      Sex And Politics and Screeds and Attitude
      View my complete profile

      Links

      • The Common Ills
      • Cedric's Big Mix
      • The Third Estate Sunday Review
      • Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man
      • Kat's Korner (The Common Ills)
      • Mikey Likes It!
      • the old Cedric's Big Mix
      • Like Maria Said Paz
      • The Daily Jot
      • Trina's Kitchen
      • Ruth's Report
      • SICKOFITRADLZ
      • Oh Boy It Never Ends
      • The World Today Just Nuts
      • Ann's Mega Dub
      • On The Edge
      • Revolution
      • Abe Says What?
      • Andy Worthington
      • Hillary's Voice
      • International Socialist Review
      • Iraq Veterans Against the War
      • Carl Webb
      • Courage to Resist
      • Random Thoughts
      • Liberal Oasis
      • Why Are We Back In Iraq
      • Corrente
      • Black Agenda Report
      • Iraq Veterans Against the War
      • Should This Marriage Be Saved? (C.I.)
      • Reading Press Releases Live From The Green Zone

      Blog Archive

      • ►  2023 (61)
        • ►  03/26 - 04/02 (3)
        • ►  03/19 - 03/26 (4)
        • ►  03/12 - 03/19 (6)
        • ►  03/05 - 03/12 (4)
        • ►  02/26 - 03/05 (5)
        • ►  02/19 - 02/26 (5)
        • ►  02/12 - 02/19 (6)
        • ►  02/05 - 02/12 (5)
        • ►  01/29 - 02/05 (4)
        • ►  01/22 - 01/29 (6)
        • ►  01/15 - 01/22 (4)
        • ►  01/08 - 01/15 (5)
        • ►  01/01 - 01/08 (4)
      • ►  2022 (228)
        • ►  12/25 - 01/01 (5)
        • ►  12/18 - 12/25 (4)
        • ►  12/11 - 12/18 (6)
        • ►  12/04 - 12/11 (5)
        • ►  11/27 - 12/04 (5)
        • ►  11/20 - 11/27 (5)
        • ►  11/13 - 11/20 (5)
        • ►  11/06 - 11/13 (5)
        • ►  10/30 - 11/06 (4)
        • ►  10/23 - 10/30 (4)
        • ►  10/16 - 10/23 (5)
        • ►  10/09 - 10/16 (6)
        • ►  10/02 - 10/09 (3)
        • ►  09/25 - 10/02 (5)
        • ►  09/18 - 09/25 (5)
        • ►  09/11 - 09/18 (5)
        • ►  09/04 - 09/11 (4)
        • ►  08/28 - 09/04 (5)
        • ►  08/21 - 08/28 (6)
        • ►  08/14 - 08/21 (4)
        • ►  08/07 - 08/14 (4)
        • ►  07/31 - 08/07 (6)
        • ►  07/24 - 07/31 (4)
        • ►  07/17 - 07/24 (5)
        • ►  07/10 - 07/17 (5)
        • ►  07/03 - 07/10 (4)
        • ►  06/26 - 07/03 (2)
        • ►  06/19 - 06/26 (4)
        • ►  06/12 - 06/19 (5)
        • ►  06/05 - 06/12 (4)
        • ►  05/29 - 06/05 (2)
        • ►  05/22 - 05/29 (5)
        • ►  05/15 - 05/22 (5)
        • ►  05/08 - 05/15 (5)
        • ►  05/01 - 05/08 (6)
        • ►  04/24 - 05/01 (4)
        • ►  04/17 - 04/24 (5)
        • ►  04/10 - 04/17 (3)
        • ►  04/03 - 04/10 (5)
        • ►  03/27 - 04/03 (4)
        • ►  03/20 - 03/27 (3)
        • ►  03/13 - 03/20 (5)
        • ►  03/06 - 03/13 (4)
        • ►  02/27 - 03/06 (4)
        • ►  02/20 - 02/27 (4)
        • ►  02/13 - 02/20 (4)
        • ►  02/06 - 02/13 (5)
        • ►  01/30 - 02/06 (3)
        • ►  01/23 - 01/30 (4)
        • ►  01/16 - 01/23 (4)
        • ►  01/09 - 01/16 (2)
        • ►  01/02 - 01/09 (3)
      • ►  2021 (221)
        • ►  12/26 - 01/02 (4)
        • ►  12/19 - 12/26 (3)
        • ►  12/12 - 12/19 (6)
        • ►  12/05 - 12/12 (4)
        • ►  11/28 - 12/05 (5)
        • ►  11/21 - 11/28 (2)
        • ►  11/14 - 11/21 (6)
        • ►  11/07 - 11/14 (4)
        • ►  10/31 - 11/07 (5)
        • ►  10/24 - 10/31 (4)
        • ►  10/17 - 10/24 (6)
        • ►  10/10 - 10/17 (3)
        • ►  10/03 - 10/10 (6)
        • ►  09/26 - 10/03 (5)
        • ►  09/19 - 09/26 (4)
        • ►  09/12 - 09/19 (4)
        • ►  09/05 - 09/12 (4)
        • ►  08/29 - 09/05 (4)
        • ►  08/22 - 08/29 (5)
        • ►  08/15 - 08/22 (4)
        • ►  08/08 - 08/15 (4)
        • ►  08/01 - 08/08 (3)
        • ►  07/25 - 08/01 (4)
        • ►  07/18 - 07/25 (5)
        • ►  07/11 - 07/18 (3)
        • ►  07/04 - 07/11 (3)
        • ►  06/27 - 07/04 (6)
        • ►  06/20 - 06/27 (4)
        • ►  06/13 - 06/20 (5)
        • ►  06/06 - 06/13 (5)
        • ►  05/30 - 06/06 (3)
        • ►  05/23 - 05/30 (5)
        • ►  05/16 - 05/23 (4)
        • ►  05/09 - 05/16 (4)
        • ►  05/02 - 05/09 (5)
        • ►  04/25 - 05/02 (5)
        • ►  04/18 - 04/25 (3)
        • ►  04/11 - 04/18 (4)
        • ►  04/04 - 04/11 (4)
        • ►  03/28 - 04/04 (3)
        • ►  03/21 - 03/28 (6)
        • ►  03/14 - 03/21 (4)
        • ►  03/07 - 03/14 (5)
        • ►  02/28 - 03/07 (4)
        • ►  02/21 - 02/28 (4)
        • ►  02/07 - 02/14 (5)
        • ►  01/31 - 02/07 (4)
        • ►  01/24 - 01/31 (6)
        • ►  01/17 - 01/24 (3)
        • ►  01/10 - 01/17 (5)
        • ►  01/03 - 01/10 (5)
      • ►  2020 (250)
        • ►  12/27 - 01/03 (4)
        • ►  12/20 - 12/27 (2)
        • ►  12/13 - 12/20 (4)
        • ►  12/06 - 12/13 (4)
        • ►  11/29 - 12/06 (5)
        • ►  11/22 - 11/29 (4)
        • ►  11/15 - 11/22 (5)
        • ►  11/08 - 11/15 (6)
        • ►  11/01 - 11/08 (4)
        • ►  10/25 - 11/01 (5)
        • ►  10/18 - 10/25 (4)
        • ►  10/11 - 10/18 (5)
        • ►  10/04 - 10/11 (6)
        • ►  09/27 - 10/04 (4)
        • ►  09/20 - 09/27 (6)
        • ►  09/13 - 09/20 (5)
        • ►  09/06 - 09/13 (3)
        • ►  08/30 - 09/06 (5)
        • ►  08/23 - 08/30 (5)
        • ►  08/16 - 08/23 (5)
        • ►  08/09 - 08/16 (5)
        • ►  08/02 - 08/09 (5)
        • ►  07/26 - 08/02 (5)
        • ►  07/19 - 07/26 (5)
        • ►  07/12 - 07/19 (5)
        • ►  07/05 - 07/12 (5)
        • ►  06/28 - 07/05 (5)
        • ►  06/21 - 06/28 (5)
        • ►  06/14 - 06/21 (5)
        • ►  06/07 - 06/14 (6)
        • ►  05/31 - 06/07 (4)
        • ►  05/24 - 05/31 (4)
        • ►  05/17 - 05/24 (5)
        • ►  05/10 - 05/17 (5)
        • ►  05/03 - 05/10 (5)
        • ►  04/26 - 05/03 (5)
        • ►  04/19 - 04/26 (5)
        • ►  04/12 - 04/19 (5)
        • ►  04/05 - 04/12 (5)
        • ►  03/29 - 04/05 (5)
        • ►  03/22 - 03/29 (5)
        • ►  03/15 - 03/22 (5)
        • ►  03/08 - 03/15 (5)
        • ►  03/01 - 03/08 (5)
        • ►  02/23 - 03/01 (5)
        • ►  02/16 - 02/23 (6)
        • ►  02/09 - 02/16 (4)
        • ►  02/02 - 02/09 (5)
        • ►  01/26 - 02/02 (5)
        • ►  01/19 - 01/26 (5)
        • ►  01/12 - 01/19 (5)
        • ►  01/05 - 01/12 (5)
      • ►  2019 (242)
        • ►  12/29 - 01/05 (3)
        • ►  12/22 - 12/29 (4)
        • ►  12/15 - 12/22 (4)
        • ►  12/08 - 12/15 (5)
        • ►  12/01 - 12/08 (5)
        • ►  11/24 - 12/01 (3)
        • ►  11/17 - 11/24 (4)
        • ►  11/10 - 11/17 (5)
        • ►  11/03 - 11/10 (5)
        • ►  10/27 - 11/03 (5)
        • ►  10/20 - 10/27 (5)
        • ►  10/13 - 10/20 (5)
        • ►  10/06 - 10/13 (5)
        • ►  09/29 - 10/06 (5)
        • ►  09/22 - 09/29 (5)
        • ►  09/15 - 09/22 (6)
        • ►  09/08 - 09/15 (4)
        • ►  09/01 - 09/08 (4)
        • ►  08/25 - 09/01 (5)
        • ►  08/18 - 08/25 (5)
        • ►  08/11 - 08/18 (5)
        • ►  08/04 - 08/11 (5)
        • ►  07/28 - 08/04 (5)
        • ►  07/21 - 07/28 (5)
        • ►  07/14 - 07/21 (5)
        • ►  07/07 - 07/14 (5)
        • ►  06/30 - 07/07 (4)
        • ►  06/23 - 06/30 (4)
        • ►  06/16 - 06/23 (5)
        • ►  06/09 - 06/16 (6)
        • ►  06/02 - 06/09 (3)
        • ►  05/26 - 06/02 (4)
        • ►  05/19 - 05/26 (6)
        • ►  05/12 - 05/19 (4)
        • ►  05/05 - 05/12 (5)
        • ►  04/28 - 05/05 (5)
        • ►  04/21 - 04/28 (4)
        • ►  04/14 - 04/21 (5)
        • ►  04/07 - 04/14 (5)
        • ►  03/31 - 04/07 (5)
        • ►  03/24 - 03/31 (5)
        • ►  03/17 - 03/24 (5)
        • ►  03/10 - 03/17 (4)
        • ►  03/03 - 03/10 (5)
        • ►  02/24 - 03/03 (5)
        • ►  02/17 - 02/24 (6)
        • ►  02/10 - 02/17 (4)
        • ►  02/03 - 02/10 (3)
        • ►  01/27 - 02/03 (5)
        • ►  01/20 - 01/27 (4)
        • ►  01/13 - 01/20 (5)
        • ►  01/06 - 01/13 (4)
      • ►  2018 (244)
        • ►  12/30 - 01/06 (4)
        • ►  12/23 - 12/30 (3)
        • ►  12/16 - 12/23 (5)
        • ►  12/09 - 12/16 (5)
        • ►  12/02 - 12/09 (5)
        • ►  11/25 - 12/02 (4)
        • ►  11/18 - 11/25 (3)
        • ►  11/11 - 11/18 (5)
        • ►  11/04 - 11/11 (5)
        • ►  10/28 - 11/04 (5)
        • ►  10/21 - 10/28 (5)
        • ►  10/14 - 10/21 (5)
        • ►  10/07 - 10/14 (5)
        • ►  09/30 - 10/07 (5)
        • ►  09/23 - 09/30 (3)
        • ►  09/16 - 09/23 (5)
        • ►  09/09 - 09/16 (6)
        • ►  09/02 - 09/09 (3)
        • ►  08/26 - 09/02 (5)
        • ►  08/19 - 08/26 (5)
        • ►  08/12 - 08/19 (5)
        • ►  08/05 - 08/12 (5)
        • ►  07/29 - 08/05 (5)
        • ►  07/22 - 07/29 (5)
        • ►  07/15 - 07/22 (5)
        • ►  07/08 - 07/15 (4)
        • ►  07/01 - 07/08 (4)
        • ►  06/24 - 07/01 (5)
        • ►  06/17 - 06/24 (5)
        • ►  06/10 - 06/17 (5)
        • ►  06/03 - 06/10 (5)
        • ►  05/27 - 06/03 (4)
        • ►  05/20 - 05/27 (4)
        • ►  05/13 - 05/20 (5)
        • ►  05/06 - 05/13 (5)
        • ►  04/29 - 05/06 (6)
        • ►  04/22 - 04/29 (4)
        • ►  04/15 - 04/22 (6)
        • ►  04/08 - 04/15 (4)
        • ►  04/01 - 04/08 (5)
        • ►  03/25 - 04/01 (5)
        • ►  03/18 - 03/25 (5)
        • ►  03/11 - 03/18 (4)
        • ►  03/04 - 03/11 (5)
        • ►  02/25 - 03/04 (5)
        • ►  02/18 - 02/25 (5)
        • ►  02/11 - 02/18 (4)
        • ►  02/04 - 02/11 (4)
        • ►  01/28 - 02/04 (5)
        • ►  01/21 - 01/28 (5)
        • ►  01/14 - 01/21 (5)
        • ►  01/07 - 01/14 (5)
      • ►  2017 (242)
        • ►  12/31 - 01/07 (4)
        • ►  12/24 - 12/31 (2)
        • ►  12/17 - 12/24 (4)
        • ►  12/10 - 12/17 (5)
        • ►  12/03 - 12/10 (5)
        • ►  11/26 - 12/03 (5)
        • ►  11/19 - 11/26 (4)
        • ►  11/12 - 11/19 (4)
        • ►  11/05 - 11/12 (5)
        • ►  10/29 - 11/05 (5)
        • ►  10/22 - 10/29 (5)
        • ►  10/15 - 10/22 (4)
        • ►  10/08 - 10/15 (5)
        • ►  10/01 - 10/08 (4)
        • ►  09/24 - 10/01 (5)
        • ►  09/17 - 09/24 (5)
        • ►  09/10 - 09/17 (4)
        • ►  09/03 - 09/10 (3)
        • ►  08/27 - 09/03 (5)
        • ►  08/20 - 08/27 (4)
        • ►  08/13 - 08/20 (5)
        • ►  08/06 - 08/13 (4)
        • ►  07/30 - 08/06 (4)
        • ►  07/23 - 07/30 (4)
        • ►  07/16 - 07/23 (5)
        • ►  07/09 - 07/16 (5)
        • ►  07/02 - 07/09 (4)
        • ►  06/25 - 07/02 (4)
        • ►  06/18 - 06/25 (4)
        • ►  06/11 - 06/18 (5)
        • ►  06/04 - 06/11 (6)
        • ►  05/28 - 06/04 (3)
        • ►  05/21 - 05/28 (5)
        • ►  05/14 - 05/21 (4)
        • ►  05/07 - 05/14 (4)
        • ►  04/30 - 05/07 (5)
        • ►  04/23 - 04/30 (5)
        • ►  04/16 - 04/23 (5)
        • ►  04/09 - 04/16 (5)
        • ►  04/02 - 04/09 (5)
        • ►  03/26 - 04/02 (5)
        • ►  03/19 - 03/26 (4)
        • ►  03/12 - 03/19 (5)
        • ►  03/05 - 03/12 (5)
        • ►  02/26 - 03/05 (5)
        • ►  02/19 - 02/26 (5)
        • ►  02/12 - 02/19 (5)
        • ►  02/05 - 02/12 (5)
        • ►  01/29 - 02/05 (5)
        • ►  01/22 - 01/29 (5)
        • ►  01/15 - 01/22 (5)
        • ►  01/08 - 01/15 (5)
        • ►  01/01 - 01/08 (5)
      • ►  2016 (209)
        • ►  12/25 - 01/01 (4)
        • ►  12/18 - 12/25 (5)
        • ►  12/11 - 12/18 (5)
        • ►  12/04 - 12/11 (5)
        • ►  11/27 - 12/04 (6)
        • ►  11/20 - 11/27 (3)
        • ►  11/13 - 11/20 (5)
        • ►  11/06 - 11/13 (5)
        • ►  10/30 - 11/06 (5)
        • ►  10/23 - 10/30 (4)
        • ►  10/16 - 10/23 (4)
        • ►  10/09 - 10/16 (4)
        • ►  10/02 - 10/09 (5)
        • ►  09/25 - 10/02 (2)
        • ►  09/18 - 09/25 (3)
        • ►  09/11 - 09/18 (4)
        • ►  09/04 - 09/11 (2)
        • ►  08/28 - 09/04 (5)
        • ►  08/21 - 08/28 (3)
        • ►  08/14 - 08/21 (5)
        • ►  08/07 - 08/14 (5)
        • ►  07/31 - 08/07 (3)
        • ►  07/24 - 07/31 (2)
        • ►  07/17 - 07/24 (5)
        • ►  07/10 - 07/17 (4)
        • ►  07/03 - 07/10 (4)
        • ►  06/26 - 07/03 (3)
        • ►  06/19 - 06/26 (5)
        • ►  06/12 - 06/19 (3)
        • ►  06/05 - 06/12 (4)
        • ►  05/29 - 06/05 (2)
        • ►  05/22 - 05/29 (4)
        • ►  05/15 - 05/22 (3)
        • ►  05/08 - 05/15 (4)
        • ►  05/01 - 05/08 (4)
        • ►  04/24 - 05/01 (4)
        • ►  04/17 - 04/24 (4)
        • ►  04/10 - 04/17 (5)
        • ►  04/03 - 04/10 (4)
        • ►  03/27 - 04/03 (6)
        • ►  03/20 - 03/27 (4)
        • ►  03/13 - 03/20 (3)
        • ►  03/06 - 03/13 (4)
        • ►  02/28 - 03/06 (4)
        • ►  02/21 - 02/28 (4)
        • ►  02/14 - 02/21 (3)
        • ►  02/07 - 02/14 (4)
        • ►  01/31 - 02/07 (4)
        • ►  01/24 - 01/31 (4)
        • ►  01/17 - 01/24 (4)
        • ►  01/10 - 01/17 (6)
        • ►  01/03 - 01/10 (3)
      • ▼  2015 (233)
        • ►  12/27 - 01/03 (5)
        • ►  12/20 - 12/27 (2)
        • ►  12/13 - 12/20 (3)
        • ►  12/06 - 12/13 (4)
        • ►  11/29 - 12/06 (3)
        • ►  11/22 - 11/29 (3)
        • ►  11/15 - 11/22 (4)
        • ►  11/08 - 11/15 (4)
        • ►  11/01 - 11/08 (4)
        • ►  10/25 - 11/01 (4)
        • ►  10/18 - 10/25 (5)
        • ►  10/11 - 10/18 (4)
        • ►  10/04 - 10/11 (4)
        • ►  09/27 - 10/04 (3)
        • ►  09/20 - 09/27 (3)
        • ►  09/13 - 09/20 (4)
        • ►  09/06 - 09/13 (3)
        • ►  08/30 - 09/06 (6)
        • ►  08/23 - 08/30 (4)
        • ►  08/16 - 08/23 (5)
        • ►  08/09 - 08/16 (5)
        • ►  08/02 - 08/09 (4)
        • ►  07/26 - 08/02 (5)
        • ►  07/19 - 07/26 (4)
        • ►  07/12 - 07/19 (6)
        • ►  07/05 - 07/12 (4)
        • ►  06/28 - 07/05 (5)
        • ►  06/21 - 06/28 (5)
        • ►  06/14 - 06/21 (4)
        • ►  06/07 - 06/14 (6)
        • ►  05/31 - 06/07 (5)
        • ►  05/24 - 05/31 (4)
        • ►  05/17 - 05/24 (4)
        • ►  05/10 - 05/17 (6)
        • ►  05/03 - 05/10 (4)
        • ►  04/26 - 05/03 (7)
        • ►  04/19 - 04/26 (4)
        • ►  04/12 - 04/19 (6)
        • ►  04/05 - 04/12 (5)
        • ►  03/29 - 04/05 (5)
        • ►  03/22 - 03/29 (4)
        • ►  03/15 - 03/22 (6)
        • ►  03/08 - 03/15 (5)
        • ►  03/01 - 03/08 (5)
        • ►  02/22 - 03/01 (5)
        • ►  02/15 - 02/22 (4)
        • ▼  02/08 - 02/15 (5)
          • shonda rhimes turns out to be a sick f**k
          • we do have the power
          • the liar barack
          • is nick dead (state of affairs)
          • bye-by brian
        • ►  02/01 - 02/08 (6)
        • ►  01/25 - 02/01 (4)
        • ►  01/18 - 01/25 (5)
        • ►  01/11 - 01/18 (5)
        • ►  01/04 - 01/11 (4)
      • ►  2014 (253)
        • ►  12/28 - 01/04 (4)
        • ►  12/21 - 12/28 (5)
        • ►  12/14 - 12/21 (5)
        • ►  12/07 - 12/14 (4)
        • ►  11/30 - 12/07 (5)
        • ►  11/23 - 11/30 (5)
        • ►  11/16 - 11/23 (4)
        • ►  11/09 - 11/16 (6)
        • ►  11/02 - 11/09 (5)
        • ►  10/26 - 11/02 (3)
        • ►  10/19 - 10/26 (6)
        • ►  10/12 - 10/19 (5)
        • ►  10/05 - 10/12 (5)
        • ►  09/28 - 10/05 (4)
        • ►  09/21 - 09/28 (5)
        • ►  09/14 - 09/21 (5)
        • ►  09/07 - 09/14 (3)
        • ►  08/31 - 09/07 (4)
        • ►  08/24 - 08/31 (5)
        • ►  08/17 - 08/24 (5)
        • ►  08/10 - 08/17 (5)
        • ►  08/03 - 08/10 (5)
        • ►  07/27 - 08/03 (5)
        • ►  07/20 - 07/27 (5)
        • ►  07/13 - 07/20 (5)
        • ►  07/06 - 07/13 (5)
        • ►  06/29 - 07/06 (4)
        • ►  06/22 - 06/29 (5)
        • ►  06/15 - 06/22 (5)
        • ►  06/08 - 06/15 (5)
        • ►  06/01 - 06/08 (5)
        • ►  05/25 - 06/01 (4)
        • ►  05/18 - 05/25 (5)
        • ►  05/11 - 05/18 (6)
        • ►  05/04 - 05/11 (5)
        • ►  04/27 - 05/04 (5)
        • ►  04/20 - 04/27 (5)
        • ►  04/13 - 04/20 (5)
        • ►  04/06 - 04/13 (5)
        • ►  03/30 - 04/06 (5)
        • ►  03/23 - 03/30 (5)
        • ►  03/16 - 03/23 (5)
        • ►  03/09 - 03/16 (5)
        • ►  03/02 - 03/09 (6)
        • ►  02/23 - 03/02 (5)
        • ►  02/16 - 02/23 (5)
        • ►  02/09 - 02/16 (5)
        • ►  02/02 - 02/09 (5)
        • ►  01/26 - 02/02 (5)
        • ►  01/19 - 01/26 (5)
        • ►  01/12 - 01/19 (5)
        • ►  01/05 - 01/12 (5)
      • ►  2013 (252)
        • ►  12/29 - 01/05 (4)
        • ►  12/22 - 12/29 (5)
        • ►  12/15 - 12/22 (5)
        • ►  12/08 - 12/15 (5)
        • ►  12/01 - 12/08 (5)
        • ►  11/24 - 12/01 (4)
        • ►  11/17 - 11/24 (5)
        • ►  11/10 - 11/17 (4)
        • ►  11/03 - 11/10 (5)
        • ►  10/27 - 11/03 (5)
        • ►  10/20 - 10/27 (5)
        • ►  10/13 - 10/20 (5)
        • ►  10/06 - 10/13 (5)
        • ►  09/29 - 10/06 (5)
        • ►  09/22 - 09/29 (5)
        • ►  09/15 - 09/22 (5)
        • ►  09/08 - 09/15 (5)
        • ►  09/01 - 09/08 (4)
        • ►  08/25 - 09/01 (5)
        • ►  08/18 - 08/25 (5)
        • ►  08/11 - 08/18 (5)
        • ►  08/04 - 08/11 (5)
        • ►  07/28 - 08/04 (5)
        • ►  07/21 - 07/28 (5)
        • ►  07/14 - 07/21 (5)
        • ►  07/07 - 07/14 (5)
        • ►  06/30 - 07/07 (4)
        • ►  06/23 - 06/30 (5)
        • ►  06/16 - 06/23 (5)
        • ►  06/09 - 06/16 (5)
        • ►  06/02 - 06/09 (5)
        • ►  05/26 - 06/02 (4)
        • ►  05/19 - 05/26 (5)
        • ►  05/12 - 05/19 (5)
        • ►  05/05 - 05/12 (5)
        • ►  04/28 - 05/05 (5)
        • ►  04/21 - 04/28 (5)
        • ►  04/14 - 04/21 (5)
        • ►  04/07 - 04/14 (5)
        • ►  03/31 - 04/07 (5)
        • ►  03/24 - 03/31 (5)
        • ►  03/17 - 03/24 (5)
        • ►  03/10 - 03/17 (5)
        • ►  03/03 - 03/10 (5)
        • ►  02/24 - 03/03 (5)
        • ►  02/17 - 02/24 (4)
        • ►  02/10 - 02/17 (5)
        • ►  02/03 - 02/10 (5)
        • ►  01/27 - 02/03 (5)
        • ►  01/20 - 01/27 (4)
        • ►  01/13 - 01/20 (5)
        • ►  01/06 - 01/13 (5)
      • ►  2012 (256)
        • ►  12/30 - 01/06 (4)
        • ►  12/23 - 12/30 (4)
        • ►  12/16 - 12/23 (5)
        • ►  12/09 - 12/16 (5)
        • ►  12/02 - 12/09 (5)
        • ►  11/25 - 12/02 (5)
        • ►  11/18 - 11/25 (4)
        • ►  11/11 - 11/18 (5)
        • ►  11/04 - 11/11 (5)
        • ►  10/28 - 11/04 (5)
        • ►  10/21 - 10/28 (5)
        • ►  10/14 - 10/21 (5)
        • ►  10/07 - 10/14 (5)
        • ►  09/30 - 10/07 (5)
        • ►  09/23 - 09/30 (5)
        • ►  09/16 - 09/23 (5)
        • ►  09/09 - 09/16 (5)
        • ►  09/02 - 09/09 (4)
        • ►  08/26 - 09/02 (5)
        • ►  08/19 - 08/26 (5)
        • ►  08/12 - 08/19 (5)
        • ►  08/05 - 08/12 (5)
        • ►  07/29 - 08/05 (5)
        • ►  07/22 - 07/29 (5)
        • ►  07/15 - 07/22 (5)
        • ►  07/08 - 07/15 (5)
        • ►  07/01 - 07/08 (4)
        • ►  06/24 - 07/01 (5)
        • ►  06/17 - 06/24 (5)
        • ►  06/10 - 06/17 (5)
        • ►  06/03 - 06/10 (5)
        • ►  05/27 - 06/03 (4)
        • ►  05/20 - 05/27 (5)
        • ►  05/13 - 05/20 (5)
        • ►  05/06 - 05/13 (5)
        • ►  04/29 - 05/06 (5)
        • ►  04/22 - 04/29 (5)
        • ►  04/15 - 04/22 (5)
        • ►  04/08 - 04/15 (5)
        • ►  04/01 - 04/08 (5)
        • ►  03/25 - 04/01 (5)
        • ►  03/18 - 03/25 (5)
        • ►  03/11 - 03/18 (5)
        • ►  03/04 - 03/11 (5)
        • ►  02/26 - 03/04 (5)
        • ►  02/19 - 02/26 (4)
        • ►  02/12 - 02/19 (5)
        • ►  02/05 - 02/12 (5)
        • ►  01/29 - 02/05 (5)
        • ►  01/22 - 01/29 (5)
        • ►  01/15 - 01/22 (4)
        • ►  01/08 - 01/15 (5)
        • ►  01/01 - 01/08 (4)
      • ►  2011 (252)
        • ►  12/25 - 01/01 (4)
        • ►  12/18 - 12/25 (5)
        • ►  12/11 - 12/18 (5)
        • ►  12/04 - 12/11 (5)
        • ►  11/27 - 12/04 (5)
        • ►  11/20 - 11/27 (4)
        • ►  11/13 - 11/20 (5)
        • ►  11/06 - 11/13 (5)
        • ►  10/30 - 11/06 (5)
        • ►  10/23 - 10/30 (5)
        • ►  10/16 - 10/23 (5)
        • ►  10/09 - 10/16 (5)
        • ►  10/02 - 10/09 (5)
        • ►  09/25 - 10/02 (5)
        • ►  09/18 - 09/25 (5)
        • ►  09/11 - 09/18 (5)
        • ►  09/04 - 09/11 (4)
        • ►  08/28 - 09/04 (5)
        • ►  08/21 - 08/28 (5)
        • ►  08/14 - 08/21 (5)
        • ►  08/07 - 08/14 (5)
        • ►  07/31 - 08/07 (5)
        • ►  07/24 - 07/31 (5)
        • ►  07/17 - 07/24 (5)
        • ►  07/10 - 07/17 (5)
        • ►  07/03 - 07/10 (4)
        • ►  06/26 - 07/03 (5)
        • ►  06/19 - 06/26 (5)
        • ►  06/12 - 06/19 (5)
        • ►  06/05 - 06/12 (5)
        • ►  05/29 - 06/05 (4)
        • ►  05/22 - 05/29 (4)
        • ►  05/15 - 05/22 (5)
        • ►  05/08 - 05/15 (4)
        • ►  05/01 - 05/08 (5)
        • ►  04/24 - 05/01 (5)
        • ►  04/17 - 04/24 (5)
        • ►  04/10 - 04/17 (5)
        • ►  04/03 - 04/10 (5)
        • ►  03/27 - 04/03 (5)
        • ►  03/20 - 03/27 (5)
        • ►  03/13 - 03/20 (5)
        • ►  03/06 - 03/13 (5)
        • ►  02/27 - 03/06 (5)
        • ►  02/20 - 02/27 (4)
        • ►  02/13 - 02/20 (5)
        • ►  02/06 - 02/13 (5)
        • ►  01/30 - 02/06 (5)
        • ►  01/23 - 01/30 (5)
        • ►  01/16 - 01/23 (4)
        • ►  01/09 - 01/16 (6)
        • ►  01/02 - 01/09 (5)
      • ►  2010 (253)
        • ►  12/26 - 01/02 (4)
        • ►  12/19 - 12/26 (5)
        • ►  12/12 - 12/19 (5)
        • ►  12/05 - 12/12 (5)
        • ►  11/28 - 12/05 (5)
        • ►  11/21 - 11/28 (4)
        • ►  11/14 - 11/21 (5)
        • ►  11/07 - 11/14 (5)
        • ►  10/31 - 11/07 (5)
        • ►  10/24 - 10/31 (5)
        • ►  10/17 - 10/24 (5)
        • ►  10/10 - 10/17 (5)
        • ►  10/03 - 10/10 (5)
        • ►  09/26 - 10/03 (5)
        • ►  09/19 - 09/26 (5)
        • ►  09/12 - 09/19 (5)
        • ►  09/05 - 09/12 (4)
        • ►  08/29 - 09/05 (5)
        • ►  08/22 - 08/29 (5)
        • ►  08/15 - 08/22 (5)
        • ►  08/08 - 08/15 (5)
        • ►  08/01 - 08/08 (6)
        • ►  07/25 - 08/01 (5)
        • ►  07/18 - 07/25 (5)
        • ►  07/11 - 07/18 (5)
        • ►  07/04 - 07/11 (4)
        • ►  06/27 - 07/04 (5)
        • ►  06/20 - 06/27 (5)
        • ►  06/13 - 06/20 (5)
        • ►  06/06 - 06/13 (5)
        • ►  05/30 - 06/06 (4)
        • ►  05/23 - 05/30 (5)
        • ►  05/16 - 05/23 (5)
        • ►  05/09 - 05/16 (5)
        • ►  05/02 - 05/09 (5)
        • ►  04/25 - 05/02 (5)
        • ►  04/18 - 04/25 (5)
        • ►  04/11 - 04/18 (4)
        • ►  04/04 - 04/11 (5)
        • ►  03/28 - 04/04 (5)
        • ►  03/21 - 03/28 (5)
        • ►  03/14 - 03/21 (5)
        • ►  03/07 - 03/14 (5)
        • ►  02/28 - 03/07 (5)
        • ►  02/21 - 02/28 (5)
        • ►  02/14 - 02/21 (4)
        • ►  02/07 - 02/14 (5)
        • ►  01/31 - 02/07 (5)
        • ►  01/24 - 01/31 (5)
        • ►  01/17 - 01/24 (4)
        • ►  01/10 - 01/17 (5)
        • ►  01/03 - 01/10 (5)
      • ►  2009 (254)
        • ►  12/27 - 01/03 (5)
        • ►  12/20 - 12/27 (4)
        • ►  12/13 - 12/20 (5)
        • ►  12/06 - 12/13 (5)
        • ►  11/29 - 12/06 (5)
        • ►  11/22 - 11/29 (4)
        • ►  11/15 - 11/22 (5)
        • ►  11/08 - 11/15 (5)
        • ►  11/01 - 11/08 (5)
        • ►  10/25 - 11/01 (5)
        • ►  10/18 - 10/25 (5)
        • ►  10/11 - 10/18 (5)
        • ►  10/04 - 10/11 (5)
        • ►  09/27 - 10/04 (5)
        • ►  09/20 - 09/27 (5)
        • ►  09/13 - 09/20 (5)
        • ►  09/06 - 09/13 (4)
        • ►  08/30 - 09/06 (5)
        • ►  08/23 - 08/30 (5)
        • ►  08/16 - 08/23 (5)
        • ►  08/09 - 08/16 (5)
        • ►  08/02 - 08/09 (5)
        • ►  07/26 - 08/02 (5)
        • ►  07/19 - 07/26 (5)
        • ►  07/12 - 07/19 (5)
        • ►  07/05 - 07/12 (4)
        • ►  06/28 - 07/05 (5)
        • ►  06/21 - 06/28 (5)
        • ►  06/14 - 06/21 (5)
        • ►  06/07 - 06/14 (5)
        • ►  05/31 - 06/07 (5)
        • ►  05/24 - 05/31 (4)
        • ►  05/17 - 05/24 (5)
        • ►  05/10 - 05/17 (5)
        • ►  05/03 - 05/10 (5)
        • ►  04/26 - 05/03 (5)
        • ►  04/19 - 04/26 (5)
        • ►  04/12 - 04/19 (5)
        • ►  04/05 - 04/12 (5)
        • ►  03/29 - 04/05 (5)
        • ►  03/22 - 03/29 (5)
        • ►  03/15 - 03/22 (5)
        • ►  03/08 - 03/15 (5)
        • ►  03/01 - 03/08 (5)
        • ►  02/22 - 03/01 (5)
        • ►  02/15 - 02/22 (4)
        • ►  02/08 - 02/15 (5)
        • ►  02/01 - 02/08 (5)
        • ►  01/25 - 02/01 (5)
        • ►  01/18 - 01/25 (4)
        • ►  01/11 - 01/18 (6)
        • ►  01/04 - 01/11 (5)
      • ►  2008 (267)
        • ►  12/28 - 01/04 (5)
        • ►  12/21 - 12/28 (4)
        • ►  12/14 - 12/21 (6)
        • ►  12/07 - 12/14 (6)
        • ►  11/30 - 12/07 (5)
        • ►  11/23 - 11/30 (5)
        • ►  11/16 - 11/23 (5)
        • ►  11/09 - 11/16 (5)
        • ►  11/02 - 11/09 (6)
        • ►  10/26 - 11/02 (5)
        • ►  10/19 - 10/26 (5)
        • ►  10/12 - 10/19 (5)
        • ►  10/05 - 10/12 (5)
        • ►  09/28 - 10/05 (5)
        • ►  09/21 - 09/28 (5)
        • ►  09/14 - 09/21 (5)
        • ►  09/07 - 09/14 (5)
        • ►  08/31 - 09/07 (4)
        • ►  08/24 - 08/31 (5)
        • ►  08/17 - 08/24 (6)
        • ►  08/10 - 08/17 (5)
        • ►  08/03 - 08/10 (5)
        • ►  07/27 - 08/03 (5)
        • ►  07/20 - 07/27 (6)
        • ►  07/13 - 07/20 (5)
        • ►  07/06 - 07/13 (5)
        • ►  06/29 - 07/06 (6)
        • ►  06/22 - 06/29 (5)
        • ►  06/15 - 06/22 (5)
        • ►  06/08 - 06/15 (6)
        • ►  06/01 - 06/08 (5)
        • ►  05/25 - 06/01 (6)
        • ►  05/18 - 05/25 (5)
        • ►  05/11 - 05/18 (5)
        • ►  05/04 - 05/11 (5)
        • ►  04/27 - 05/04 (5)
        • ►  04/20 - 04/27 (5)
        • ►  04/13 - 04/20 (5)
        • ►  04/06 - 04/13 (5)
        • ►  03/30 - 04/06 (5)
        • ►  03/23 - 03/30 (6)
        • ►  03/16 - 03/23 (5)
        • ►  03/09 - 03/16 (5)
        • ►  03/02 - 03/09 (5)
        • ►  02/24 - 03/02 (5)
        • ►  02/17 - 02/24 (5)
        • ►  02/10 - 02/17 (5)
        • ►  02/03 - 02/10 (5)
        • ►  01/27 - 02/03 (5)
        • ►  01/20 - 01/27 (5)
        • ►  01/13 - 01/20 (5)
        • ►  01/06 - 01/13 (5)
      • ►  2007 (258)
        • ►  12/30 - 01/06 (4)
        • ►  12/23 - 12/30 (4)
        • ►  12/16 - 12/23 (5)
        • ►  12/09 - 12/16 (5)
        • ►  12/02 - 12/09 (5)
        • ►  11/25 - 12/02 (5)
        • ►  11/18 - 11/25 (4)
        • ►  11/11 - 11/18 (5)
        • ►  11/04 - 11/11 (6)
        • ►  10/28 - 11/04 (5)
        • ►  10/21 - 10/28 (5)
        • ►  10/14 - 10/21 (5)
        • ►  10/07 - 10/14 (5)
        • ►  09/30 - 10/07 (5)
        • ►  09/23 - 09/30 (5)
        • ►  09/16 - 09/23 (5)
        • ►  09/09 - 09/16 (5)
        • ►  09/02 - 09/09 (5)
        • ►  08/26 - 09/02 (5)
        • ►  08/19 - 08/26 (5)
        • ►  08/12 - 08/19 (6)
        • ►  08/05 - 08/12 (5)
        • ►  07/29 - 08/05 (5)
        • ►  07/22 - 07/29 (5)
        • ►  07/15 - 07/22 (5)
        • ►  07/08 - 07/15 (5)
        • ►  07/01 - 07/08 (4)
        • ►  06/24 - 07/01 (5)
        • ►  06/17 - 06/24 (5)
        • ►  06/10 - 06/17 (5)
        • ►  06/03 - 06/10 (5)
        • ►  05/27 - 06/03 (4)
        • ►  05/20 - 05/27 (6)
        • ►  05/13 - 05/20 (4)
        • ►  05/06 - 05/13 (6)
        • ►  04/29 - 05/06 (5)
        • ►  04/22 - 04/29 (5)
        • ►  04/15 - 04/22 (5)
        • ►  04/08 - 04/15 (5)
        • ►  04/01 - 04/08 (5)
        • ►  03/25 - 04/01 (5)
        • ►  03/18 - 03/25 (5)
        • ►  03/11 - 03/18 (5)
        • ►  03/04 - 03/11 (5)
        • ►  02/25 - 03/04 (5)
        • ►  02/18 - 02/25 (5)
        • ►  02/11 - 02/18 (5)
        • ►  02/04 - 02/11 (5)
        • ►  01/28 - 02/04 (5)
        • ►  01/21 - 01/28 (5)
        • ►  01/14 - 01/21 (5)
        • ►  01/07 - 01/14 (5)
      • ►  2006 (324)
        • ►  12/31 - 01/07 (5)
        • ►  12/24 - 12/31 (4)
        • ►  12/17 - 12/24 (5)
        • ►  12/10 - 12/17 (6)
        • ►  12/03 - 12/10 (5)
        • ►  11/26 - 12/03 (5)
        • ►  11/19 - 11/26 (4)
        • ►  11/12 - 11/19 (5)
        • ►  11/05 - 11/12 (11)
        • ►  10/29 - 11/05 (11)
        • ►  10/22 - 10/29 (12)
        • ►  10/15 - 10/22 (10)
        • ►  10/08 - 10/15 (9)
        • ►  10/01 - 10/08 (8)
        • ►  09/24 - 10/01 (15)
        • ►  09/17 - 09/24 (11)
        • ►  09/10 - 09/17 (10)
        • ►  09/03 - 09/10 (5)
        • ►  08/27 - 09/03 (5)
        • ►  08/20 - 08/27 (5)
        • ►  08/13 - 08/20 (8)
        • ►  08/06 - 08/13 (5)
        • ►  07/30 - 08/06 (4)
        • ►  07/23 - 07/30 (4)
        • ►  07/16 - 07/23 (4)
        • ►  07/09 - 07/16 (5)
        • ►  07/02 - 07/09 (4)
        • ►  06/25 - 07/02 (6)
        • ►  06/18 - 06/25 (5)
        • ►  06/11 - 06/18 (5)
        • ►  06/04 - 06/11 (5)
        • ►  05/28 - 06/04 (7)
        • ►  05/21 - 05/28 (5)
        • ►  05/14 - 05/21 (5)
        • ►  05/07 - 05/14 (5)
        • ►  04/30 - 05/07 (6)
        • ►  04/23 - 04/30 (7)
        • ►  04/16 - 04/23 (4)
        • ►  04/09 - 04/16 (6)
        • ►  04/02 - 04/09 (6)
        • ►  03/26 - 04/02 (6)
        • ►  03/19 - 03/26 (5)
        • ►  03/12 - 03/19 (5)
        • ►  03/05 - 03/12 (5)
        • ►  02/26 - 03/05 (5)
        • ►  02/19 - 02/26 (6)
        • ►  02/12 - 02/19 (5)
        • ►  02/05 - 02/12 (7)
        • ►  01/29 - 02/05 (4)
        • ►  01/22 - 01/29 (6)
        • ►  01/15 - 01/22 (5)
        • ►  01/08 - 01/15 (4)
        • ►  01/01 - 01/08 (4)
      • ►  2005 (310)
        • ►  12/25 - 01/01 (5)
        • ►  12/18 - 12/25 (5)
        • ►  12/11 - 12/18 (6)
        • ►  12/04 - 12/11 (4)
        • ►  11/27 - 12/04 (7)
        • ►  11/20 - 11/27 (6)
        • ►  11/13 - 11/20 (5)
        • ►  11/06 - 11/13 (7)
        • ►  10/30 - 11/06 (5)
        • ►  10/23 - 10/30 (5)
        • ►  10/16 - 10/23 (8)
        • ►  10/09 - 10/16 (11)
        • ►  10/02 - 10/09 (9)
        • ►  09/25 - 10/02 (4)
        • ►  09/18 - 09/25 (10)
        • ►  09/11 - 09/18 (5)
        • ►  09/04 - 09/11 (5)
        • ►  08/28 - 09/04 (5)
        • ►  08/21 - 08/28 (5)
        • ►  08/14 - 08/21 (5)
        • ►  08/07 - 08/14 (5)
        • ►  07/31 - 08/07 (4)
        • ►  07/24 - 07/31 (5)
        • ►  07/17 - 07/24 (5)
        • ►  07/10 - 07/17 (4)
        • ►  07/03 - 07/10 (5)
        • ►  06/26 - 07/03 (4)
        • ►  06/19 - 06/26 (7)
        • ►  06/12 - 06/19 (6)
        • ►  06/05 - 06/12 (6)
        • ►  05/29 - 06/05 (6)
        • ►  05/22 - 05/29 (3)
        • ►  05/15 - 05/22 (7)
        • ►  05/08 - 05/15 (5)
        • ►  05/01 - 05/08 (8)
        • ►  04/24 - 05/01 (6)
        • ►  04/17 - 04/24 (5)
        • ►  04/10 - 04/17 (5)
        • ►  04/03 - 04/10 (6)
        • ►  03/27 - 04/03 (8)
        • ►  03/20 - 03/27 (5)
        • ►  03/13 - 03/20 (8)
        • ►  03/06 - 03/13 (5)
        • ►  02/27 - 03/06 (6)
        • ►  02/20 - 02/27 (5)
        • ►  02/13 - 02/20 (6)
        • ►  02/06 - 02/13 (6)
        • ►  01/30 - 02/06 (10)
        • ►  01/23 - 01/30 (5)
        • ►  01/16 - 01/23 (17)
        • ►  01/09 - 01/16 (5)

      Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude

      Loading...
      Watermark theme. Powered by Blogger.