Friday, March 19 2004
JOHN KERRY IS "BIG TIME": This guy is some piece of work. Off camera, he calls people names. On camera, he berates them in public. Now we see how he treats the people charged with the unenviable task of taking a bullet to save his life.

In addition to what it tells us about Kerry's character, it's an even more revealing indication of what a terrible politician he is. Most elected officials, even those with significantly less experience than Kerry, know better than to make these kinds of mistakes and, more importantly, learn very quickly not to repeat them. Kerry seems either unable or unwilling to figure it out. That's not the sort of thing most people find appealing in a President.

OVERSTATING THE CASE: Josh Marshall and Kevin Drum both trumpet this quote by Ivo Daalder as proof positive George Bush is an anathema to Europe and its leaders:

"This is the third election of a major ally in which the party running against George Bush won. Look at Germany in '02, South Korea in '03, and now Spain. The message is: If you want to get re-elected, don't go to Crawford. Bush is a political liability -- in Europe, in particular. His foreign policy has trampled on the European views and it's now resulting in the election of governments that do not support his approach."

There's a good degree of truth to this statement, of course. But Daalder also avers in the TAP interview that "the Spanish election was a referendum not only on Aznar but on Bush as well. They both lost." I don't think he could be more wrong.

Let's remember that right up until the very second those bombs detonated in Madrid last week, the Socialists had very little chance of winning this election. With less than 100 hours until the election, Aznar's hand-picked successor, Mariano Rajoy, was well ahead in the polls and virtually assured of winning. So explain to me again how this was a "referendum" on George W. Bush?

It wasn't. Nor could a Rajoy victory have been seriously trumpeted as a referendum vindicating Bush and Aznar. And Lord knows Marshall, Drum, et. al would have ridiculed anyone trying to suggest as much.

Clearly, the terrorist attack changed the outcome of the election. But that's really the point, isn't it? It was terror, not hatred of George Bush, that was responsible for the vote in Spain. No bombs, no Socialists, no convenient but erroneous arguments about "referendums."

GAY MARRIAGE: The Mayor of Seattle, Greg Nickels, wrote an op-ed in today's Seattle Times explaining his decision to issue an executive order to recognizing gay marriages among city employees:

It was not very long ago that interracial marriages were outlawed in many parts of our nation. That was wrong. And it's wrong to outlaw same-sex marriages. Just as you cannot change the color of your skin, you cannot change your sexual orientation. (emphasis added)

As I've written before, the highlighted sentence is really the nut of the issue. Public attitudes are changing about whether sexual orientation is genetic or not, but there is still no scientific proof to support Mayor Nickels' assertion. He's not only wrong to claim this as fact but to use it as the basis for his decision to issue an executive order. That's why we have things called legislatures and courts in this country. - T. Bevan 8:20 am | Link | Email | Send to a Friend

Thursday, March 18 2004
McCAIN STRIKES AGAIN: And you wonder why the Senator from Arizona isn't well liked by some of his fellow Republicans.... From the AP:

"No, I do not believe that he [John Kerry] is, quote, weak on defense. He's responsible for his voting record, as we are all responsible for our records, and he'll have to explain it. But, no, I do not believe that he is necessarily weak on defense. I don't agree with him on some issues, clearly. But I decry this negativism that's going on on both sides. The American people don't need it."

When asked on "The Early Show" if Kerry's election would compromise national security, McCain responded: "I don't think that - I think that John Kerry is a good and decent man. I think he has served his country."

McCain, Bush's rival for the Republican nomination in 2000, said he believes Bush has led the nation with clarity since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and that he supports Bush's re-election. "But I would certainly hope that we could raise the level of this debate. Otherwise, we're going to have very low voter turnouts in November," he told CBS.

I didn't watch any television this morning so forgive me if I'm not getting this right. Did John McCain really go on two different national television shows this morning to defend John Kerry's record on national defense?

And did he further suggest that taking a critical look at Kerry's 19- year voting record on defense issues is somehow impugning Kerry's patriotism by suggesting that he is NOT a "good and decent man" who has "served his country"? Can he name a single person who has ever said such a thing?

And by decrying "this negativism that's going on on both sides" did McCain really equate the Bush administration's characterization of Kerry's record as "soft on defense" on par with some of the bile that has been coming out of the Kerry camp, including Kerry's own remark calling Republicans "the most crooked ... lying group I've ever seen?" I guess McCain wasn't too upset with Kerry's crack about Republicans since it doesn't really apply to him : ) - T. Bevan 1:00 pm | Link | Email | Send to a Friend

THE VOICE OF EXPERIENCE: Lynn Sweet writes in the Chicago Sun-Times:

It took Sen. Jon Corzine (D-N.J.), chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, only two hours and 24 minutes after the polls closed in Illinois to e-mail a note to donors looking for cash, predicting Ryan, who poured about $3 million of his own money into his GOP primary, will "spend millions more'' of his fortune to prevail in November.

Corzine should know - he bought his NJ Senate seat in 2000 for the bargain-basement price of $62.8 million. - T. Bevan 10:16 am | Link | Email | Send to a Friend

TERRORISM AND ELECTIONS: The terrorist attack last week and the subsequent victory by the Socialists in Spain has led to all sort of speculation as to whether we might expect similar attacks in the future and the possible consequences on elections in the democratic world.

While it may seem unseemly to speculate on the political fallout from such awful attacks, they are an unfortunate part of the reality of the world we live in today. And as we have seen this past week in Spain, these events can have profound consequences on democratic elections.

Before these attacks even occurred last week I'd been pondering how two very different events - the capture of Osama bin Laden vs. a major al Qaeda strike - might affect our election this fall.

I don't think there is any question the capture of bin Laden would provide a tremendous short-term benefit to President Bush. But over the longer run the capture of OBL could also lead to a sense of complacency in the American public that the War on Terror had been won - a sentiment that I think would work to the advantage of Senator Kerry and the Democrats.

On the other hand if we were to be hit with a serious strike from al Qaeda between now and November, the President's approval would skyrocket and the American people would refocus their anger and attention on the War on Terror. Most Americans would have little or no patience for Senator Kerry's suggestion that this war is "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation."

So, as far as the U.S. is concerned, if al Qaeda wanted to see George W. Bush defeated I don't know that a pre-election strike would be the best way to accomplish that objective. I'm pretty confident the American people would not respond like the Spanish this weekend. A small majority might suggest that our actions brought on the attack, of course, but the vast majority would most likely conclude that the problem is that we haven't been aggressive enough and haven't killed enough of these murderers.

CHENEY: Which leads us to the Vice President's address at the Reagan Library yesterday. The federal government's primary and most important job is to provide for the nation's defense and security. Senator Kerry and the Democrats might prefer to talk about jobs, outsourcing, healthcare, big oil, big drug companies, etc..., but when it comes to voting time the American people are going to want to know who is going to protect the country from this murderous enemy.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, at the moment the choice is stark. Cheney did a brilliant job of methodically exposing just how much trouble Senator Kerry will have this fall when it comes to debating the War on Terror.

Here are a few excerpts, but the entire speech is worth reading, and should chill any excitement Democrats may currently feel in regards to Kerry's chances of unseating the President:

The attacks of September 11th, 2001, signaled the arrival of an entirely different era. We suffered massive civilian casualties on our own soil. We awakened to dangers even more lethal - the possibility that terrorists could gain chemical, biological, or even nuclear weapons from outlaw regimes, and turn those weapons against the United States and our friends. We came to understand that for all the destruction and grief we saw that day, September 11th gave only the merest glimpse of the threat that international terrorism poses to this and other nations. If terrorists ever do acquire weapons of mass destruction - on their own or with help from a terror regime - they will use those weapons without the slightest constraint of reason or morality. Instead of losing thousands of lives, we might lose tens or even hundreds of thousands of lives in a single day of horror.

This great and urgent responsibility has required a shift in national security policy. For many years prior to 9/11, we treated terror attacks against Americans as isolated incidents, and answered - if at all - on an ad hoc basis, and never in a systematic way. Even after an attack inside our own country - the 1993 bombing at the World Trade Center, in New York - there was a tendency to treat terrorist incidents as individual criminal acts, to be handled primarily through law enforcement. The man who perpetrated that attack in New York was tracked down, arrested, convicted, and sent off to serve a 240-year sentence.

Against this kind of determined, organized, ruthless enemy, America requires a new strategy - not merely to prosecute a series of crimes, but to fight and win a global campaign against the terror network. Our strategy has several key elements. We have strengthened our defenses here at home, organizing the government to protect the homeland. But a good defense is not enough. The terrorist enemy holds no territory, defends no population, is unconstrained by rules of warfare, and respects no law of morality. Such an enemy cannot be deterred, contained, appeased, or negotiated with. It can only be destroyed - and that, ladies and gentlemen, is the business at hand. (emphasis added)

I leave it for Senator Kerry to explain, or explain away his votes and his statements about the war on terror, our cause in Iraq, the allies who serve with us, and the needs of our military. Whatever the explanation, whatever nuances he might fault us for neglecting, it is not an impressive record for someone who aspires to become Commander-in-Chief in this time of testing for our country. In his years in Washington, Senator Kerry has been one vote of a hundred in the United States Senate - and fortunately on matters of national security, he was very often in the minority. But the presidency is an entirely different proposition. The President always casts the deciding vote. And the Senator from Massachusetts has given us ample doubts about his judgment and the attitude he brings to bear on vital issues of national security.

The American people will have a clear choice in the election of 2004, at least as clear as any since the election of 1984. In more than three years as President, George W. Bush has built a national security record of his own. America has come to know the President after one of the worst days in our history. He saw America through tragedy. He has kept the nation's enemies in desperate flight, and under his leadership, our country has once again led the armies of liberation, freeing 50 million souls from tyranny, and making our nation and the world more secure.

All Americans, regardless of political party, can be proud of what our nation has achieved in this historic time, when so many depended on us, and all the world was watching. And I have been very proud to work with a President who - like other Presidents we have known - has shown, in his own conduct, the optimism, and strength, and decency of the great nation he serves. (Emphasis added)

This is why some Democrats, like the former mayor of New York, Ed Koch, have said publicly they will vote for President Bush. Our enemies are at war with us, and whether we like it or not we are in a war.

In many ways this election will boil down to that very question: Are we or are we not at war? If the American people truly believe we are in a war, President Bush will be extremely difficult to beat. However, if the horror of 9/11 recedes from the public's mind and people think the War on Terror either 1) has been won or 2) isn't a top priorityl, then Senator Kerry will have a real shot at victory.

Contrary to conventional political wisdom, the Democrats should hope we catch Bin Laden as soon possible, that everything in Iraq goes great and that we don't suffer another terror strike between now and November. Then, like Churchill in 1945, the American people might say "thank you President Bush, but we no longer need you."

SPAIN AGAIN: To be fair to the Spanish people I don't know that you can blame them 100% for being appeasers and cowards. The Aznar government and his Popular Party appeared to have been less than truthful in who was responsible for the bombings in the immediate days afterward. While I understand the reason they might have wanted to downplay the possibility of al Queda involvement, the first rule when a tragedy of this magnitude hits is honesty, and the truth has to take priority over short-term political calculations. If the Spanish government deliberately mislead their people they deserved to lose, no matter how pathetic the Socialists may be. While this may partially excuse the Spanish result, unfortunately most of the people in Spain appear to blame Bush and Aznar for the attacks last week and not the murderers. They will learn the hard way, over time, where the evil truly lies. - J. McIntyre 7:23 am | Link | Email | Send to a Friend

Wednesday, March 17 2004 - Happy St. Patrick's Day
When an ad like this generates a response like this, you know it has done its job.

MORE IL SENATE: Our friend Kevin McCullough has a detailed analysis of yesterday's action and what it may mean for the GOP come November. - T. Bevan 9:59 am

IT'S OBAMA V. RYAN: When I said last Tuesday that Barack Obama was the real deal, I meant it. But I'm still surprised by the way he crushed the Dem field today. People outside of Illinois don't realize that Obama started this race as a modestly experienced State Senator (albeit a very impressive one) with little money and even less name recognition battling for the nomination against a guy worth $500 million who ultimately spent close to $40 million in the race (Blair Hull) and another guy who not only had been twice elected statewide - the last time in 2002 with over 2 million votes - but who also had the backing of large portions of the vaunted Democratic machine (Dan Hynes). None of it mattered. Obama vaporized them both.

Let me try to give you an idea of the magnitude of Obama's win: I just saw his campaign manager, David Axelrod, on television and he said that Obama captured something like 60% of the white vote and more than 80% of the black vote in Cook County and the collar counties. This is absolutely unheard of. Axelrod said it shattered even the most optimistic turnout models they had looked at. When we get a chance to dig through the full returns tomorrow I think we're going to find some very impressive numbers from all over the state - including among independents and crossover Republicans.

Speaking of Republicans, it looks like in the last few minutes since I started writing The Tribune has put a red check next to Jack Ryan's name. Ryan took a wave of vicious hits during the final week and it's showing in the vote tally, but he's held on to win.

Ironically, Blair Hull's implosion over the release of his previously sealed divorce documents showing that he had struck his wife in 1998 wife hurt Ryan down the stretch as well because Ryan also has sealed records from his 1999 divorce with actress Jeri Ryan that he's refused to release.

Rumors are swirling that there is something embarrassing in those files and that the Dems have already got their hands on them. Frankly, this smells to me like a little underhanded game of guilt by association, but we'll have to wait and see what, if anything shows up when Ryan's divorce records are leaked - and you know they will be leaked if this race is even remotely close.

So it's game on in Illinois. It's a shame this race won't get the sort of national attention it deserves - mostly because Illinois isn't really in play at the Presidential level - because I think you'll see a debate of the issues at an incredibly high intellectual level. These guys are both rising stars of their respective parties with very similar pedigrees.

Ryan is 44, a summa cum laude graduate of Dartmouth, earned a JD from Harvard, became a millionaire at Goldman Sachs and then left to teach at an all-black school on the South Side of Chicago.

Obama is 43, went to Columbia, earned a JD at Harvard graduating magna cum laude and becoming the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. In addition to being a State Senator he's also a senior lecturer specializing in constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School.

Those two resumes ain't small potatoes. But that's about where the similarities end. Obama is a hardcore "progressive" and Ryan is what I would characterize as a staunch fiscal conservative but a bit more to the moderate side on social issues. They are both very articulate and they'll be great advocates for their respective positions and ideologies.

So there you have my late night Illinois primary wrap up. May the best man win. - T. Bevan 12:01 am | Link | Email | Send to a Friend

Tuesday, March 16 2004
Perhaps the "10th planet" discovered earlier this week should have its name changed from Sedna to "Krugman," because the New York Times columnist is definitely not living here on Earth. Today's column is so detached from reality it reads more like an exploration of some alternate universe than a serious opinion essay.

Don't get me wrong, I think Bush and his folks have made a number of mistakes in the War on Terror, all of which are fair game and a few of which Krugman touches on.

But, as usual, the legitimate particulars of Krugman's argument are far outweighed by a number of ridiculous assertions that are at worst outright falsehoods and at best an absolute affront to common sense.

Let's focus on a couple of these statements. One of Krugman's main points is that Bush diverted valuable resources away from pursuing bin Laden in Afghanistan to depose Saddam. Fine.

Personally, I look at this list and don't think the War on Terror has been an either/or proposition over the last two and a half years, but it is certainly a rational argument to make.

But Krugman also says:

The truth is that Mr. Bush, while eager to invoke 9/11 on behalf of an unrelated war, has shown consistent reluctance to focus on the terrorists who actually attacked America, or their backers in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

"Consistent reluctance to focus on the terrorists?" If you want to know just how ridiculous this statement is, imagine it in a public opinion survey and then try to guess the results. You'd be hard pressed to find 5% of Americans who would agree with it, and they would be the same five percent who carry the "BUSH = HITLER" signs around at anti-war rallies. Nice company for a Princeton professor and columnist for the "Paper of Record."

Krugman then moves into Cynthia McKinney territory:

This reluctance dates back to Mr. Bush's first months in office. Why, after all, has his inner circle tried so hard to prevent a serious investigation of what happened on 9/11? There has been much speculation about whether officials ignored specific intelligence warnings, but what we know for sure is that the administration disregarded urgent pleas by departing Clinton officials to focus on the threat from Al Qaeda.

Let's skip the tinfoil-hat innuendo suggesting advance knowledge of 9/11 and get to the "what we know for sure" part. Krugman is obviously referring to this Time Magazine article from August 2002 reporting a briefing by Sandy Berger and Richard Clarke with Condi Rice in early 2001 to present a plan to "roll back" al-Qaeda.

Trying to portray the Clinton folks as "urgently" focused on the threat from al-Qaeda is an attempt at historical revisionism so audacious it would make Stalin blush.

America watched nearly a decade go by while al-Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers, U.S. embassies in Africa, and the USS Cole. During that time our government's response to those attacks consisted of a couple criminal convictions and cruise missile strikes.

Clinton and his team had eight years to come up with a plan. We got nothing - except a Richard Clarke Powerpoint presentation during their final month in office.

George Bush had eight months. The final plan, which Time described as "designed not to 'roll back' al-Qaeda but to 'eliminate' it", was sitting in Condi Rice's inbox on September 10. You decide who was "more reluctant" to fight terrorism and whether Krugman is even remotely near the truth.

And that's the problem with Krugman. He's not content with making reasonable arguments about how John Kerry (or any Democrat for that matter) could do a more effective job in pursuing the War on Terror. Instead he tries to turn black into white and argue that George Bush is soft on terror. It just doesn't wash.

CBS VS. THE TIMES: Here we go again. Compare and contrast the headlines from the latest CBS/New York Times poll which has Bush leading Kerry by 3 points head-to-head (46% to 43%) and Bush leading Kerry by 8 points in a three way race with Ralph Nader (46%, 38%, 7%):

CBS News: "Bush Moves Ahead Of Kerry"
NYT: "Nation's Direction Prompts Voters' Concern, Poll Finds"

CBS reports in its first paragraph that:

Eight months from Election Day, it is already a nip-and-tuck Presidential race. George W. Bush currently leads John Kerry by three points among voters, while two weeks ago Kerry was up by one. Seven in ten of each candidate’s voters say they have already locked in their choices, and most voters already have clear opinions of the two presidential candidates’ qualities and their potential strengths and weaknesses in office.

Who do they think they are, Fox News? Give CBS credit for not burying the lede.

As you might expect, The Times is a different story. Before Adam Nagourney and Janet Elder deliver the bad news to their readers, they load up seven full paragraphs of copy - four of which contain either favorable descriptions of Kerry or negative descriptions of Bush including this big, fat quote from a disgruntled Republican:

"Our priorities need to be reshuffled," Darrell Griffin, 64, a Republican retired engineer from Hemphill, Tex., said in a follow-up interview. "The protection of the homeland and our allies from terrorism is important, but our economy in our own country and Social Security and things like that here at home are pretty important, too. "

Howell Raines is smiling right now, wherever he is... - T. Bevan 9:56 am | Link | Email | Send to a Friend

Monday, March 15 2004
I'm deeply disappointed, but not too surprised, by the election results. This morning the AP is reporting that Spain's incoming prime minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, says he will pull Spanish troops out of the Iraq coalition in July.

All the speculation over whether the election was a result of the government's hasty reaction in blaming ETA for the attacks or whether it was a referendum on Aznar's support of the war in Iraq hardly matters now. The message has been sent out loud and clear and there is simply no taking it back or changing the way the enemies of civilization will interpret it.

Unfortunately, the Spanish electorate honored the 200 souls who perished at the hands of terrorists last week by promoting a government that will, with a fairly high degree of certainty, adopt a less aggressive policy toward capturing and killing the types of people responsible for the massacre in Madrid.

I put this quote on the front page yesterday, but it's worth reprinting here for those who might have missed it. John Lloyd, a severe critic of the Bush administration, wrote in Scotland on Sunday:

Now, a world-wide alliance anathematises an America which has deposed the world’s leading fascist murderer, has helped bring a lesser fascist murderer to trial in the Hague, is struggling to guard and guarantee democratic development in Afghanistan and is seeking to stabilise a desperate Haiti. If fanatics are beyond the pale and young idealists must live for a while in their delusions, at least the rest of us should recognise the change. A curmudgeonly, limited and hard-to-like administration is pursuing causes which liberals have wished to be pursued for decades.

One of these causes is the defeat of terrorism. Whatever we discover on the identity of the Madrid massacre, the largest bulwark we have against terrorism’s success is the United States. The ‘international community’, usually equated with the UN, is in the end a collection of nation states which will, when push comes to shove, protect themselves.

It can only say that its ‘cabinet’, the UN Security Council, intervened to stop carnage since the war on a number of occasions which can be counted on the fingers of two hands. Policing the globe is a burden which we, the Europeans, have so far politely declined. The US is, as Philip Bobbitt has written, "the one state with the power and willingness to intervene on behalf of world order".

Madrid reminds us that we need that willingness, whatever pure evil hand left these bombs among the early morning workers of Spain.

With the elections in Spain yesterday, America's resolve to lead a relentless fight against terrorists and those who abet them around the world is more important than ever.
UPDATE: Tim Blair has substantial round up of comments from the blogosphere.

OUR BUSINESS: In a weird stroke of coincidence, yesterday the U.S. Secretary of State and a 52 year-old man in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania posed the same question to John Kerry: tell us which leaders are behind your recent boast about support from foreign leaders. Kerry's response to both men: "That's none of your business."

Au contraire, Monsieur.

POLLS: New Bush v. Kerry polls in Florida and Illinois.

THE CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR: The Chicago Tribune runs a front page story on Staff Sgt Camilo Mejia from the Florida National Guard's 1st Battalion of the 124th Infantry Regiment. Mejia went AWOL five months ago upon returning home from Iraq and he plans to surrender to authorities today in Boston and seek "conscientious objector" status.

According to the Tribune:

Mejia accuses commanders of using GIs as "bait" to lure out Iraqi fighters so that U.S. soldiers could win combat decorations. He also says operations were conducted in ways that sometimes risked injuring civilians. He has accused his battalion and company commanders of incompetence and has reiterated other guardsmen's complaints about being poorly equipped.

Read the whole story. As someone who fought in a war he didn't believe in and who is now adamantly opposed to our policy in Iraq, I'd be interested in knowing what John Kerry thinks of the Mejia case. And no, I'm not being facetious. - T. Bevan 8:39 am | Link | Email

Andrew Sullivan Milt Rosenberg
Armavirumque Morning Grind
Best of the Web No Left Turns
Bill Hobbs The Note
CalPundit Oxblog
The Corner Pejmanesque
Daily KOS Polipundit
Dan Drezner Political Wire
Donald Luskin PowerLine
Donald Sensing Rich Galen
Drudge Robert Tagorda
Easterblogg Roger L. Simon
First Read Ryan Lizza
Hit and Run Scrappleface
Hugh Hewitt SD Politics
Instapundit TPM
James Lileks Tapped
John Ellis TNR
Kausfiles Tim Blair
Kevin McCullough Virginia Postrel
Matt Rosenberg Volokh
Matthew Yglesias Wonkette

Archives - 2004
3/8-14 | 3/1-7 | 2/23-27 | 2/16-22 | 2/9-15 | 2/2-2/8 | 1/26-2/1 | 1/19-25 | 1/12-18 | 1/5-11 | 12/29/03-1/4/04

Archives - 2003
12/22-28 | 12/15-21 | 12/8-14 | 12/1-7 | 11/24-11/30 | 11/17-11/23 | 11/10-11/16 | 11/3-11/9 | 10/27-11/2 | 10/20-26 | 10/13-19 | 10/6-10/12 | 9/29-10/5 | 9/22-28 | 9/15-9/21 | 9/8-9/14 | 9/1-9/7 | 8/25-8/31 | 8/17-8/24 | 8/11-8/16 | 8/4-8/10 | 7/28-8/3 | 7/21-7/27 | 7/14-7/20 | 7/7-7/13 | 6/30-7/6 | 6/23-6/29 | 6/16-6/22 | 6/9-6/15 | 6/2-6/8 | 5/26-6/1 | 5/19-5/25 | 5/12-5/18 | 5/5-5/11 | 4/28-5/4 | 4/21-4/27 | 4/14-4/20 | 4/7-4/13 | 3/31-4/6 | 3/24 - 3/30 | 3/10 - 3/17 | 3/3-3/9 | 2/24-3/2 | 2/17-2/23 |
2/10-2/16 | 2/3- 2/9 | 1/27 - 2/2 | 1/20 -1/26 | 1/13-1/19 | 1/6-1/12 | 12/31/02-1/5/03

Archives - 2002
12/23-12/29 | 12/16-12/22 | 12/9-12/15 | 12/2-12/8 | 11/25-12/1 | 11/18-11/24 | 11/11-11/17 | 11/4-11/10 | 10/28-11/3 | 10/21-10/27 | 10/14 -10/20 | 10/7-10/13 | 9/30-10/6 | 9/23 -9/29 | 9/16-9/22