LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for PORTSIDE Archives


PORTSIDE Archives

PORTSIDE Archives


PORTSIDE@LISTS.PORTSIDE.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PORTSIDE Home

PORTSIDE Home

PORTSIDE  January 2013, Week 2

PORTSIDE January 2013, Week 2

Subject:

Differing Views - How Should the Left View Hagel's Nomination

From:

Portside Moderator <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Wed, 9 Jan 2013 20:41:27 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (467 lines)

Differing Views - How Should the Left View Hagel's Nomination

1. Will Chuck Hagel's Appointment Actually Help the Anti-War
Left? - Phyllis Bennis  - The Nation
2. Why Progressives Should Oppose Hagel - Allen Ruff - The
Progressive

=====

Will Chuck Hagel's Appointment Actually Help the Anti-War
Left?

by Phyllis Bennis

January 8, 2013
The Nation.com Blog

http://www.thenation.com/blog/172061/will-chuck-hagels-appointment-actually-help-anti-war-left

Chuck Hagel isn't anyone I'd pick to be in a position of
power. He's a conservative Republican, a military guy who
volunteered to fight in Vietnam. According to Forbes magazine,
during Hagel's tenure in the Senate "he favored school prayer,
missile defense and drilling in Alaska, while opposing
abortion, same-sex marriage and limits on assault guns. He
voted in favor of every defense authorization bill that came
up during the dozen years he served, while opposing extension
of Medicare benefits to prescription drugs. Such stances
earned him a lifetime rating of 84 percent from the American
Conservative Union." Forbes, of course, thinks this is all
great.

Me, not so much. But okay, we're talking about Secretary of
Defense, not someone responsible for domestic and social
policy. Well, first of all, if I had to choose a secretary of
defense, I'd start with someone who recognized that their
first requirement would be to transform the US war machine
from an aggressive into a defensive institution... something
it's never been before. If we assume it had to be a member of
Congress, I'd start with Barbara Lee or Dennis Kucinich, not
Chuck Hagel.

But that isn't the choice we face. The alternatives to Hagel
won't be the heroic Oakland congresswoman or the committed
defender of the Department of Peace, they'll be military
bureaucrats who have never said a word outside their
respective boss's talking point boxes.

At the end of the day, this isn't about Hagel vs. anybody.
This is about what President Obama is signaling by his
nomination of Hagel as Secretary of Defense -  and about the
political forces arrayed against him.

Hagel's nomination engendered bitter, angry opposition from
the moment it was floated as a trial balloon two weeks ago.
And the fact that Obama went ahead with the nomination,
despite the opposition and the threats that the Senate would
never confirm Hagel, is a good indication that on at least
some critical foreign policy issues, Obama is not prepared to
allow either the pro-Israeli lobbies or the hard-core
neoconservatives, in and outside of Washington, to determine
whom he could and could not choose as secretary of defense.

The opposition was from both of those separate, though
overlapping, Washington cohorts. Pro-Israel forces are
outraged that President Obama might appoint someone who once
had the temerity to warn that the lobby "intimidates a lot of
people" in Washington. Of course, it would have been better if
Hagel had properly identified the "pro-Israel lobby" rather
than the sloppy "Jewish lobby" description, which ignores the
huge influence of the right-wing Christian Zionism; Hagel
himself apologized for the careless language. (If Israel
didn't identify itself as a "Jewish state," with all of the
resulting apartheid policies that go along with it, it might
be easier to distinguish.) But whatever the language, it's a
significant expos, of the perceived power of the lobby, enough
that AIPAC, the lobby's most authoritative component, pulled
back from criticizing Hagel as soon as the nomination was
final, leaving the most extremist components, such as the
Emergency Committee for Israel, to continue the attacks.

We should be clear, of course -  Hagel is no supporter of a
just solution to the Palestine-Israel conflict based on human
rights, international law and equality for all. He told
Ha'aretz that any solution "should not include any compromise
regarding Israel's Jewish identity." That's code for accepting
Israel's two-tiered legal system, which privileges Jewish over
non-Jewish citizens and denies Palestinian citizens crucial
rights available only to Jews. Again, we aren't looking at a
choice between supporters of international law and an
uncritical supporter of Israel -  but having a secretary of
defense who acknowledges the danger of putting Israeli
interests above those of the United States and willing to
challenge the pro-Israel lobbies is a pretty interesting
development. (And if Obama saw the nomination also as an
opportunity to pay back Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu for
his all-but-official endorsement of Mitt Romney during last
year's election, that's likely just a bonus.)

Neocon anger at Chuck Hagel isn't new. Some of it parallels
the frustration of the Israel lobbies -  Hagel's refusal to
tow the AIPAC line, particularly refusing to call for war with
Iran. He warned that "military strikes against Iran's nuclear
facilities would signal a severe diplomatic failure and would
have their own serious negative consequences for the United
States and for our allies." Hagel has instead called for
direct, bilateral negotiations with Iran, and in 2010 he
warned of the consequences of attacking Iran, saying "Once you
start you'd better be prepared to find 100,000 troops because
it may take that." Notorious Israel occupation-backer and
Harvard law school professor Alan Dershowitz announced he
would testify against Hagel on Iran, calling his nomination "a
bad choice for the country."

Hagel as secretary of defense doesn't guarantee there will be
no war with Iran -  but Obama's nomination of him, and
willingness to defend him against the soft-on-Iran
accusations, signals that the White House isn't looking to
move towards a military attack any time soon.

The neocons also have it in for Hagel because he was one of
the first Republicans to criticize their favorite project, the
war in Iraq. Of course he voted to fund it every chance he got
-  he's no peace activist. But Hagel broke politically with
George W. Bush and his own party, calling Bush's foreign
policy "reckless," and called Bush's 2007 "surge in Iraq "a
ping-pong game with American lives." He didn't, however,
express any concern for Iraqi lives, nor did he ultimately
vote against the war -  either in 2002 at the moment of the
crucial authorize-the-war vote, or later when funding bills
came before him. As David Corn wrote in 2002, Hagel "cautioned
humility: `I share the hope of a better world without Saddam
Hussein, but we do not really know if our intervention in Iraq
will lead to democracy in either Iraq or elsewhere in the Arab
world.' Bottom line: Hagel feared the resolution would lead to
a war that would go badly but didn't have the guts to say no
to the leader of his party."

Would he challenge Obama -  who's not from his party -  if
faced with a potentially disastrous new war -  in Syria, say -
or escalation of the drone war in Yemen, or something else?
Probably not -  but there's that slight bit of hope that it
could be somehow different than appointing a Pentagon insider
bureaucrat.

And then there's the Pentagon budget. Hagel has called it
"bloated," pretty amazing for a future secretary of defense.
Obama may have felt that a decorated Republican military
veteran would be the best choice to convince a Republican-
controlled congress that some cuts will have to be made.
There's no way Hagel will argue the realities and consequences
of the whole military budget -  the impact on jobs and
healthcare of the $111 billion we spent this year on a failed
war in Afghanistan, the million dollars per year it costs to
keep just one young soldier in Afghanistan and the fact that
we could bring home that one soldier and have enough money to
hire her and 19 more young former soldiers at good
$50,000/year middle-class union jobs. He won't argue that.

But still -  a Pentagon chief who actually believes his
agency's budget should be cut -  that's new. And ultimately,
that's probably the most important reason for the attack dogs
slavering for Hagel's skin. The Washington Post editorialized
that Hagel's willingness to cut military spending was one of
the key reasons to oppose his nomination. Behind the Post, of
course, are the military producers and contractors whose CEOs
fortunes stand (rarely fall) on the Pentagon's budget.

Unfortunately, military cuts of the size we really need to
rebuild the economy and make our country and the world truly
safer -  ending the Afghanistan war quickly and entirely,
stopping the drone wars, moving towards complete nuclear
disarmament, closing the 1,000 or so overseas military bases -
will not be on the agenda of Chuck Hagel or anyone else at the
Pentagon. But still. Better someone in charge who agrees that
Pentagon spending is not sacrosanct than someone who views
their role to keep every last billion dollars in military
hands.

The Post editorial board went on to condemn Hagel's politics
overall. Most cross-party appointments, they said, "offer a
veneer of bipartisanship to the national security team." But
Hagel would be different -  he would not "move it toward the
center, which is the usual role of such opposite-party
nominees. On the contrary: Mr. Hagel's stated positions on
critical issues, ranging from defense spending to Iran, fall
well to the left of those pursued by Mr. Obama during his
first term -  and place him near the fringe of the Senate."

Whatever else he is, Chuck Hagel is no leftist. Standing to
the left of President Obama's center-right military policy is
not a very high bar. But again -  standing up to AIPAC, the
defense industry (and members of Congress accountable to them)
and the still-powerful neocons makes the Hagel appointment a
good move for Obama. And it gives the rest of us a basis to
push much farther to end the wars, to close the bases, to cut
the Pentagon funding, to tax the military profiteers.

[Phyllis Bennis is a fellow of the Institute for Policy
Studies and of the Transnational Institute in Amsterdam. She
is active in the US and global Palestinian rights and peace
movements, and her books include Challenging Empire: How
People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power and Ending the
US War in Afghanistan: A Primer.]

[Barack Obama's nomination of John Kerry for Secretary of
State gives the Senate a critical opportunity to probe the
administration's foreign policy priorities.
http://www.thenation.com/article/171980/tough-questions-john-kerry]

==========

Why Progressives Should Oppose Hagel

By Allen Ruff

January 8, 2013
The Progressive

http://www.progressive.org/why-progressives-should-oppose-hagel

Following weeks of trial-balloon conjecture, President Obama
nominated Chuck Hagel, the former Senator from Nebraska and
oft-described "moderate Republican," to succeed Leon Panetta
as Secretary of Defense.

Conservative critics had raised objections as soon as Hagel's
name surfaced as a probable nominee in mid-November. The usual
pack of neocon watchdogs charged him with being inadequately
hawkish on Iran and out of lockstep on Israel.

Towing its increasingly neocon editorial line, the Washington
Post on November 18th editorialized that Hagel was "not the
right choice for defense secretary." Citing the ex-Senator-
cum-Washington insider's public record, the Post asserted:
"Mr. Hagel's stated positions on critical issues, ranging from
defense spending to Iran, fall well to the left of those
pursued by Mr. Obama during his first term." (Hagel once had
the temerity to suggest that Pentagon spending should be
"pared down." Imagine!)

 Detractors dredged up a back-when Senate vote against Iran
 sanctions as rightwing media hacks echo chambered alleged
 "anti-Semitism" based upon the Senator's years ago use of the
 phrase "Jewish lobby". He certainly rankled some Israel
 right-or-wrong types in 2006 when he said, "I'm not an
 Israeli senator. I'm a United States senator. I support
 Israel, but my first interest is I take an oath of office to
 the Constitution of the United States, not to a president,
 not to a party, not to Israel. If I go run for Senate in
 Israel, I'll do that."

Liberal backers, in response, immediately sprung to the
Nebraskan's defense. The Atlantic's James Fallows described
him as a "wise bipartisan pick" with Vietnam combat-vet cred
and a "cautious realist-centrist record" while filleting the
"bogus case against Chuck Hagel."

Hagel in August 2005 had won favor among centrist types when
he became the first Republican Senator to publicly criticize
the Iraq war and to call for US withdrawal. Criticizing then-
President Bush, the GOP, and the Patriot Act's erosion of
civil liberties that December, Hagel stated that, "I took an
oath of office to the Constitution, I didn't take an oath of
office to my party or my president,"

He later went on, in 2007, to criticize plans for the Iraq war
"surge." Such rank-breaking statements, while endearing him to
disquieted anti-war moderates, have never been forgotten by
the Right.

The problem today is that neither Hagel's detractors nor his
supporters have really fully laid out who he is or why
progressives should firmly oppose his appointment as the
Pentagon's top gun. Certainly, those to the left should not
fall into the trap of cheering on Obama's latest War
Department pick, solely because the Right stands opposed.

Currently a member of the board of directors of Chevron, Hagel
led the charge in 1997 to block ratification of the Kyoto
Protocol, the international agreement that would have
committed the US and other industrial nations to reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. The Hagel-Byrd Resolution, co-
authored by the coal-friendly Democrat, West Virginia's Robert
Byrd, argued that the Kyoto failed to include developing
countries and posed barriers to US economic expansion.

On his way through the revolving door to higher fame and
fortune, Hagel announced in September 2007 that he would not
seek a third term in the Senate. While his current mainstream
biographies note that he happens to teach at Georgetown, they
somehow consistently miss mentioning that he might have to
give up his current position on Chevron's board.

He probably will have to rotate out of his seat as co-chair of
the President's Intelligence Advisory Board, the appointed
body of "distinguished citizens selected from the national
security, political, academic, and private sectors...
independent of the Intelligence Community, free from day-to-
day management or operational responsibilities. with full
access to the complete range of intelligence-related
information."

Hagel also currently sits on the board of directors of the
American Security Project, a Washington-based imperial think
tank committed to "understanding and articulating American
beliefs and values related to U.S. foreign policy," and
forging a domestic "bipartisan consensus" on "a new national
security strategy that will restore America's leadership..."
Founded in 2007, with Hagel and Hillary Clinton's State
Department heir apparent, John Kerry, as founding members, the
American Security Project is heavily involved in "energy
security policy research," and "the national security need for
biofuels" (i.e., the "greening" of the Pentagon) as well as
"cultivating strategic responses to 21st century challenges."

 If he receives Senate confirmation, Hagel's current position
 as Chair of the non-governmental but immensely influential
 Atlantic Council will most likely be placed on hold, at least
 until he returns to "private life."

Seldom discussed, the Washington-based council was founded 50
years ago as an elite foreign policy NGO committed to
forwarding US "national interest" and continued Cold War
supremacy within the "Atlantic community" and beyond.
According to foreign policy critic Rick Rozoff, it was
established in 1961 by former Secretaries of State Dean
Acheson and Christian Herter to bolster support for NATO.
Under US leadership, Atlantic Councils were set up in
affiliated member states for the same purpose.

A recent list of Council associates reads like a "who's who"
of the Washington foreign policy establishment. Henry
Kissinger's disciple, the former National Security adviser
Brent Scowcroft has played a significant role in shaping the
contemporary organization. Obama's first National Security
Advisor James L. Jones and UN Ambassador Susan Rice, the first
pick to succeed Panetta at the Pentagon, formerly worked for
the AC.

Hagel's predecessor as Council Chair, Jones had been a Marine
Corps four-star general, top commander of U.S. European
Command and NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe from 2003 to
2006. He also served as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's
special envoy for Middle East security and in that position
openly discussed deploying NATO troops to the West Bank, a
recommendation echoed by his Atlantic Council colleague,
Scowcroft.

Scowcroft, a retired Air Force general and National Security
Advisor under Presidents Ford and George H. W. Bush, is now
the chairman of the Atlantic Council's International Advisory
Board. Co-chaired by Hagel, the Council's Strategic Advisors
Group is a standing body of roughly 40 senior experts on NATO
and transatlantic security issues. Founded in 2007 by then
Council Chairman Jones, Scowcroft, and others, the Strategic
Advisors Group describes itself as the "pre-eminent
institution for strategic thinking and analysis on Euro-
Atlantic security" through its "thought leadership" on issues
such as Afghanistan/Pakistan, and NATO's Strategic Concept.
The group produces major public policy briefs and reports, and
hosts off-the-record "Strategy Sessions" for senior U.S. and
European civilian and military officials, while providing
"informal, expert advice to senior policymakers."

With Chuck Hagel at the helm, the Council's attentions have
increasingly turned toward Central and South Asia. As part of
that pivot, especially toward oil and uranium rich and
strategically located Kazakhstan, the Council undertook a
project in 2010 entitled "Eurasia as Part of Transatlantic
Security." Also headed by Hagel, that effort has sought to
"shape the transatlantic debate on security in Eurasia..."

The council's Eurasia Task Force has been funded by a grant
from the Kazakhstan government, currently ruled by the
authoritarian "president for life," Nursultan Nazarbayev.
Additional support has come though the Council's Strategic
Advisory Group as well as from EADS-North America, the US
subsidiary of one of Europe's largest military aircraft
manufacturers currently providing weaponry to repressive
regimes across Central Asia.

While still in elected office and well before he joined the
board of directors at Chevron (today a major investor in
Kazakhstan's Caspian Sea oil fields) or became Chair of the
Atlantic Council, Hagel had been the only US Senator to visit
all five Central Asian republics. His dovetailing interests
and ties to the region have continued since.

In May, 2010 Michele Kinman, the deputy director of Crude
Accountability, an environmental citizen action group
concerned with Caspian Sea regional issues, addressed Hagel at
Chevron's annual Board of Directors' meeting.

Kinman pointed out how Chevron was intensely involved in
hydrocarbon projects in Kazakhstan fraught with violations of
environmental law, a lack of transparency and, ultimately,
scandal.

She pointed out how Chevron was then poised to sign a major
agreement with the authoritarian government of Turkmenistan to
develop the country's largely untapped hydrocarbon reserves.
Noting Hagel's clear interest in, and ties to, Caspian oil and
gas development, she also pointed to his stated record in
support of transparency and anti-corruption. She called upon
him to be put his weight behind a call for Turkmenistan, one
of the world's most repressive countries, to "dramatically and
measurably improve its human rights and accountability record
before Chevron invests in its hydrocarbon sector."

Kinman went on to argue that "if Chevron engages with a
repressive regime such as Turkmenistan to secure hydrocarbons
without first insisting on significant, demonstrable
improvements in human rights, transparency and rule of law, it
will strengthen anti-democratic tendencies and stifle the
development of an already severely compromised civil society,
as it has in Burma, Nigeria, Columbia and in numerous other
countries around the world."

Addressing the now-would-be Secretary of Defense, she went on:
"Senator Hagel, as a new board member, you have a tremendous
opportunity and responsibility to raise the bar for corporate
responsibility in the Caspian to a level that is in accordance
with the Chevron Way, for starters, but more importantly, in
accordance with international law and practice."

"Senator Hagel," she asked, "Are you prepared to insist that
your company take a principled stance in favor of human rights
in Turkmenistan today?"

Hagel did not respond to Kinman. Instead, Chevron CEO John
Watson encouraged Crude Accountability to write the Senator at
a later time.

Perhaps during his confirmation hearings, some current Senator
will elicit some answers to similar questions regarding
Hagel's concerns for "energy security" and a his apparent
willingness to overlook the nature of repressive regimes in
exchange for such. That prospect is unlikely.

[Allen Ruff is a U.S. historian and investigative researcher.
His primary work centers on opposition to U.S. "grand
strategy" and interventions in the Middle East, Central Asia
and elsewhere. He hosts a weekly a public affairs program on
WORT, 89.9 FM in Madison, Wisconsin and blogs at
allenruff.blogspot.com.]

==========

___________________________________________

Portside aims to provide material of interest to people
on the left that will help them to interpret the world
and to change it.

Submit via email: [log in to unmask]

Submit via the Web: http://portside.org/submittous3

Frequently asked questions: http://portside.org/faq

Sub/Unsub: http://portside.org/subscribe-and-unsubscribe

Search Portside archives: http://portside.org/archive

Contribute to Portside: https://portside.org/donate

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2019, Week 3
July 2019, Week 2
July 2019, Week 1
June 2019, Week 5
June 2019, Week 4
June 2019, Week 3
June 2019, Week 2
June 2019, Week 1
May 2019, Week 5
May 2019, Week 4
May 2019, Week 3
May 2019, Week 2
May 2019, Week 1
April 2019, Week 5
April 2019, Week 4
April 2019, Week 3
April 2019, Week 2
April 2019, Week 1
March 2019, Week 5
March 2019, Week 4
March 2019, Week 3
March 2019, Week 2
March 2019, Week 1
February 2019, Week 4
February 2019, Week 3
February 2019, Week 2
February 2019, Week 1
January 2019, Week 5
January 2019, Week 4
January 2019, Week 3
January 2019, Week 2
January 2019, Week 1
December 2018, Week 5
December 2018, Week 4
December 2018, Week 3
December 2018, Week 2
December 2018, Week 1
November 2018, Week 5
November 2018, Week 4
November 2018, Week 3
November 2018, Week 2
November 2018, Week 1
October 2018, Week 5
October 2018, Week 4
October 2018, Week 3
October 2018, Week 2
October 2018, Week 1
September 2018, Week 5
September 2018, Week 4
September 2018, Week 3
September 2018, Week 2
September 2018, Week 1
August 2018, Week 5
August 2018, Week 4
August 2018, Week 3
August 2018, Week 2
August 2018, Week 1
July 2018, Week 5
July 2018, Week 4
July 2018, Week 3
July 2018, Week 2
July 2018, Week 1
June 2018, Week 5
June 2018, Week 4
June 2018, Week 3
June 2018, Week 2
June 2018, Week 1
May 2018, Week 5
May 2018, Week 4
May 2018, Week 3
May 2018, Week 2
May 2018, Week 1
April 2018, Week 5
April 2018, Week 4
April 2018, Week 3
April 2018, Week 2
April 2018, Week 1
March 2018, Week 5
March 2018, Week 4
March 2018, Week 3
March 2018, Week 2
March 2018, Week 1
February 2018, Week 4
February 2018, Week 3
February 2018, Week 2
February 2018, Week 1
January 2018, Week 5
January 2018, Week 4
January 2018, Week 3
January 2018, Week 2
January 2018, Week 1
December 2017, Week 5
December 2017, Week 4
December 2017, Week 3
December 2017, Week 2
December 2017, Week 1
November 2017, Week 5
November 2017, Week 4
November 2017, Week 3
November 2017, Week 2
November 2017, Week 1
October 2017, Week 5
October 2017, Week 4
October 2017, Week 3
October 2017, Week 2
October 2017, Week 1
September 2017, Week 5
September 2017, Week 4
September 2017, Week 3
September 2017, Week 2
September 2017, Week 1
August 2017, Week 5
August 2017, Week 4
August 2017, Week 3
August 2017, Week 2
August 2017, Week 1
July 2017, Week 5
July 2017, Week 4
July 2017, Week 3
July 2017, Week 2
July 2017, Week 1
June 2017, Week 5
June 2017, Week 4
June 2017, Week 3
June 2017, Week 2
June 2017, Week 1
May 2017, Week 5
May 2017, Week 4
May 2017, Week 3
May 2017, Week 2
May 2017, Week 1
April 2017, Week 5
April 2017, Week 4
April 2017, Week 3
April 2017, Week 2
April 2017, Week 1
March 2017, Week 5
March 2017, Week 4
March 2017, Week 3
March 2017, Week 2
March 2017, Week 1
February 2017, Week 4
February 2017, Week 3
February 2017, Week 2
February 2017, Week 1
January 2017, Week 5
January 2017, Week 4
January 2017, Week 3
January 2017, Week 2
January 2017, Week 1
December 2016, Week 5
December 2016, Week 4
December 2016, Week 3
December 2016, Week 2
December 2016, Week 1
November 2016, Week 5
November 2016, Week 4
November 2016, Week 3
November 2016, Week 2
November 2016, Week 1
October 2016, Week 5
October 2016, Week 4
October 2016, Week 3
October 2016, Week 2
October 2016, Week 1
September 2016, Week 5
September 2016, Week 4
September 2016, Week 3
September 2016, Week 2
September 2016, Week 1
August 2016, Week 5
August 2016, Week 4
August 2016, Week 3
August 2016, Week 2
August 2016, Week 1
July 2016, Week 5
July 2016, Week 4
July 2016, Week 3
July 2016, Week 2
July 2016, Week 1
June 2016, Week 5
June 2016, Week 4
June 2016, Week 3
June 2016, Week 2
June 2016, Week 1
May 2016, Week 5
May 2016, Week 4
May 2016, Week 3
May 2016, Week 2
May 2016, Week 1
April 2016, Week 5
April 2016, Week 4
April 2016, Week 3
April 2016, Week 2
April 2016, Week 1
March 2016, Week 5
March 2016, Week 4
March 2016, Week 3
March 2016, Week 2
March 2016, Week 1
February 2016, Week 5
February 2016, Week 4
February 2016, Week 3
February 2016, Week 2
February 2016, Week 1
January 2016, Week 5
January 2016, Week 4
January 2016, Week 3
January 2016, Week 2
January 2016, Week 1
December 2015, Week 5
December 2015, Week 4
December 2015, Week 3
December 2015, Week 2
December 2015, Week 1
November 2015, Week 5
November 2015, Week 4
November 2015, Week 3
November 2015, Week 2
November 2015, Week 1
October 2015, Week 5
October 2015, Week 4
October 2015, Week 3
October 2015, Week 2
October 2015, Week 1
September 2015, Week 5
September 2015, Week 4
September 2015, Week 3
September 2015, Week 2
September 2015, Week 1
August 2015, Week 5
August 2015, Week 4
August 2015, Week 3
August 2015, Week 2
August 2015, Week 1
July 2015, Week 5
July 2015, Week 4
July 2015, Week 3
July 2015, Week 2
July 2015, Week 1
June 2015, Week 5
June 2015, Week 4
June 2015, Week 3
June 2015, Week 2
June 2015, Week 1
May 2015, Week 5
May 2015, Week 4
May 2015, Week 3
May 2015, Week 2
May 2015, Week 1
April 2015, Week 5
April 2015, Week 4
April 2015, Week 3
April 2015, Week 2
April 2015, Week 1
March 2015, Week 5
March 2015, Week 4
March 2015, Week 3
March 2015, Week 2
March 2015, Week 1
February 2015, Week 4
February 2015, Week 3
February 2015, Week 2
February 2015, Week 1
January 2015, Week 5
January 2015, Week 4
January 2015, Week 3
January 2015, Week 2
January 2015, Week 1
December 2014, Week 5
December 2014, Week 4
December 2014, Week 3
December 2014, Week 2
December 2014, Week 1
November 2014, Week 5
November 2014, Week 4
November 2014, Week 3
November 2014, Week 2
November 2014, Week 1
October 2014, Week 5
October 2014, Week 4
October 2014, Week 3
October 2014, Week 2
October 2014, Week 1
September 2014, Week 5
September 2014, Week 4
September 2014, Week 3
September 2014, Week 2
September 2014, Week 1
August 2014, Week 5
August 2014, Week 4
August 2014, Week 3
August 2014, Week 2
August 2014, Week 1
July 2014, Week 5
July 2014, Week 4
July 2014, Week 3
July 2014, Week 2
July 2014, Week 1
June 2014, Week 5
June 2014, Week 4
June 2014, Week 3
June 2014, Week 2
June 2014, Week 1
May 2014, Week 5
May 2014, Week 4
May 2014, Week 3
May 2014, Week 2
May 2014, Week 1
April 2014, Week 5
April 2014, Week 4
April 2014, Week 3
April 2014, Week 2
April 2014, Week 1
March 2014, Week 5
March 2014, Week 4
March 2014, Week 3
March 2014, Week 2
March 2014, Week 1
February 2014, Week 4
February 2014, Week 3
February 2014, Week 2
February 2014, Week 1
January 2014, Week 5
January 2014, Week 4
January 2014, Week 3
January 2014, Week 2
January 2014, Week 1
December 2013, Week 5
December 2013, Week 4
December 2013, Week 3
December 2013, Week 2
December 2013, Week 1
November 2013, Week 5
November 2013, Week 4
November 2013, Week 3
November 2013, Week 2
November 2013, Week 1
October 2013, Week 5
October 2013, Week 4
October 2013, Week 3
October 2013, Week 2
October 2013, Week 1
September 2013, Week 5
September 2013, Week 4
September 2013, Week 3
September 2013, Week 2
September 2013, Week 1
August 2013, Week 5
August 2013, Week 4
August 2013, Week 3
August 2013, Week 2
August 2013, Week 1
July 2013, Week 5
July 2013, Week 4
July 2013, Week 3
July 2013, Week 2
July 2013, Week 1
June 2013, Week 5
June 2013, Week 4
June 2013, Week 3
June 2013, Week 2
June 2013, Week 1
May 2013, Week 5
May 2013, Week 4
May 2013, Week 3
May 2013, Week 2
May 2013, Week 1
April 2013, Week 5
April 2013, Week 4
April 2013, Week 3
April 2013, Week 2
April 2013, Week 1
March 2013, Week 5
March 2013, Week 4
March 2013, Week 3
March 2013, Week 2
March 2013, Week 1
February 2013, Week 4
February 2013, Week 3
February 2013, Week 2
February 2013, Week 1
January 2013, Week 5
January 2013, Week 4
January 2013, Week 3
January 2013, Week 2
January 2013, Week 1
December 2012, Week 5
December 2012, Week 4
December 2012, Week 3
December 2012, Week 2
December 2012, Week 1
November 2012, Week 5
November 2012, Week 4
November 2012, Week 3
November 2012, Week 2
November 2012, Week 1
October 2012, Week 5
October 2012, Week 4
October 2012, Week 3
October 2012, Week 2
October 2012, Week 1
September 2012, Week 5
September 2012, Week 4
September 2012, Week 3
September 2012, Week 2
September 2012, Week 1
August 2012, Week 5
August 2012, Week 4
August 2012, Week 3
August 2012, Week 2
August 2012, Week 1
July 2012, Week 5
July 2012, Week 4
July 2012, Week 3
July 2012, Week 2
July 2012, Week 1
June 2012, Week 5
June 2012, Week 4
June 2012, Week 3
June 2012, Week 2
June 2012, Week 1
May 2012, Week 5
May 2012, Week 4
May 2012, Week 3
May 2012, Week 2
May 2012, Week 1
April 2012, Week 5
April 2012, Week 4
April 2012, Week 3
April 2012, Week 2
April 2012, Week 1
March 2012, Week 5
March 2012, Week 4
March 2012, Week 3
March 2012, Week 2
March 2012, Week 1
February 2012, Week 5
February 2012, Week 4
February 2012, Week 3
February 2012, Week 2
February 2012, Week 1
January 2012, Week 5
January 2012, Week 4
January 2012, Week 3
January 2012, Week 2
January 2012, Week 1
December 2011, Week 5
December 2011, Week 4
December 2011, Week 3
December 2011, Week 2
December 2011, Week 1
November 2011, Week 5
November 2011, Week 4
November 2011, Week 3
November 2011, Week 2
November 2011, Week 1
October 2011, Week 5
October 2011, Week 4
October 2011, Week 3
October 2011, Week 2
October 2011, Week 1
September 2011, Week 5
September 2011, Week 4
September 2011, Week 3
September 2011, Week 2
September 2011, Week 1
August 2011, Week 5
August 2011, Week 4
August 2011, Week 3
August 2011, Week 2
August 2011, Week 1
July 2011, Week 5
July 2011, Week 4
July 2011, Week 3
July 2011, Week 2
July 2011, Week 1
June 2011, Week 5
June 2011, Week 4
June 2011, Week 3
June 2011, Week 2
June 2011, Week 1
May 2011, Week 5
May 2011, Week 4
May 2011, Week 3
May 2011, Week 2
May 2011, Week 1
April 2011, Week 5
April 2011, Week 4
April 2011, Week 3
April 2011, Week 2
April 2011, Week 1
March 2011, Week 5
March 2011, Week 4
March 2011, Week 3
March 2011, Week 2
March 2011, Week 1
February 2011, Week 4
February 2011, Week 3
February 2011, Week 2
February 2011, Week 1
January 2011, Week 5
January 2011, Week 4
January 2011, Week 3
January 2011, Week 2
January 2011, Week 1
December 2010, Week 5
December 2010, Week 4
December 2010, Week 3
December 2010, Week 2
December 2010, Week 1
November 2010, Week 5
November 2010, Week 4
November 2010, Week 3
November 2010, Week 2
November 2010, Week 1
October 2010, Week 5
October 2010, Week 4
October 2010, Week 3
October 2010, Week 2
October 2010, Week 1
September 2010, Week 5
September 2010, Week 4
September 2010, Week 3
September 2010, Week 2
September 2010, Week 1
August 2010, Week 5
August 2010, Week 4
August 2010, Week 3
August 2010, Week 2
August 2010, Week 1
July 2010, Week 5
July 2010, Week 4
July 2010, Week 3
July 2010, Week 2
July 2010, Week 1

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.PORTSIDE.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager