« Jeanne Kirkpatrick - "We wuz wrong?" | Main | Watch the Bridges »

13 April 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Ask the Bellagio in Las Vegas about Wolfowitz.

How smart is it to have an honest-to-goodness gambler in charge of the World Bank.


By the standards of Nuremberg, the Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter, Wolfowitz could most certainly be charged with multiple crimes. So could many others who brought us to, and have perpetuated, this aggressive war of choice and conquest.

The Hague could become a very busy place.

Will this happen? Perhaps. But justice can move slowly and erratically.

Nuremberg and the UN Charter represent a tremendous advance in international law, and states continue to have interests that run counter to those laws.

The UN helpfully clouded the issue with a mealy justification after the fact resolution recognizing the occupation of Iraq. They then compounded that by releasing the Oil-for-Food funds they had been administering, other embragoed Iraqi state acccounts, and established a UN mission (briefly) on Iraqi soil.

That of course does not repeal previously adopted international law.

It will be a better day when powerful states voluntarily constrain themselves to the precepts of international law. Our nation's actions have brought us no honor and dubious material benefits out of what the Soviets would have termed 'adventurism'. All of us who acquiesed or stood by while this occurred bears a measure of responsibility for the crimes committed and the harms inflicted. The sooner we put an end to the offense and make ammends the better.

This is most certainly one of the 'foreign entanglements' that Washington warned us about. In this case the transcendent scorn for the rule of law can be seen throughout the behavior and actions of the administration. As if they could never be brought to any acount. This has been compounded by idiocy, lack of attention, and sloppiness. What might have been simply deplorable and illegal has become catastrophic. These actions will damage our nation for generations with nearly incalculable effects to the treasury, international prestige and national standing, economic investment, miltary and strategic ramifications, and our national soul.

This unnecessary war, which was supposed to upend all of our lingering Vietnam War reticence, has proceeded like Vietnam on crack. I'm not sure that there is a single failed concept or action from that war that was trotted out and dolled up in the past 4 years.

And now that we can't put Iraq back together again, comes the cry to widen the war to Iran, and maybe Syria for good measure. In Vietnam, at least we had the good sense not to widen the war to China and the USSR, and were content to pick on Laos and Cambodia. Unlike those countries and Iraq, Iran actually has a functional military, it has command and control of the economy. And if we attack, it will have the full suport of the poulation.

Should we do that, after what we have countenanced previously, the world will never forgive us.

Cold War Zoomie


I am in no position to argue legal points. Congress gave Bush the go-ahead, citing a whole litany of US law and UN resolutions as justification. He took it. The majority of the US population backed him all the way. Wolfowitz was part of Bush's team.

I fully understand that the law is the absolute minimum standard of behavior. Being legal does not make it right, ethical or moral. Being justified does not make it smart. And I am definitely not defending this administration's decision to invade, regardless of whether every legal hurdle was cleared or not.

But comparing Wolfowitz to Nazi Germany and Nuremburg is ridiculous. Bush did not burn down the Capitol and declare himself "The Leader." Yes, there are some similarities between these knuckleheads and Hitler’s rise to power but we could fill an entire book about the huge differences.

Rather, this is what happens when an electorate is not paying attention. Our electorate is in a sorry state of affairs - we could fill another book about all those problems.

Fact is, Bush et al had an opportunity. They took it when "We the People" handed it to them. And we, as a society, will have to learn the hard way that we cannot float through life totally disengaged from politics and what happens in this cesspool called Washington, DC. Well - that cesspool two miles down the road just past Crisfield's seafood.

Hmmm...Crisfield's...yum, yum.


Now it has been said in stark black and white terms. This indeed is "Sic Semper Tyrannis." Chris Matthews "Tweetie Bird" (as he is affectionately called as firedoglake.com) has skirted around the edges of calling it "waging aggressive war" with all the ramifications that characterization entails.

It doesn't stop with Wolfie. There are a lot more than him involved including the "Shooter" and the W.

Lucius Junius Brutus's spirit is honored.


I think back to the famous case Nicaragua v. United States from 1986 at the International Court of Justice, incidentally also in the Hague. When the US were about to be sentenced, they withdrew from it's jurisdiction in the case (ain't national sovereignty handy?). The judges however, found the case important enough to provide their ruling on the merits. A highly recommended read.

Nobody was ever punished for the US aggression toward Nicaragua. I doubt that it will be much different for Wolfie's crimes.

For that to change, the US public must accept (1) that use of military force is not a legitimate expression of national will, and (2) that the war in Iraq was illegal. Both will be hard to sell especially to the US right. Don't forget that Saddam was evil and deserved it. In significant parts the discussion in the US is that shallow. Just watch tv.

As for The Hague in particular, I have not forgotten Jesse Helms thunderous flatulations in opposition to the ICC. In the case any US soldier is arrested or tried in The Hague, his American Service members Protection Act (ASPA) mandates the invasion of Holland, means, authorizes the President to use "all means necessary" to liberate Americans or allies held by the international tribunal (hence its European nickname, "The Hague Invasion Act").

If the US doesn't punish US war crimes, somebody else will. That's what the ICC is there for. In fact, US service members might be better off in The Hague than in Ft. Leavenworth. Among other things, they would not face the death penalty.

ASPA is a slap in the face to the many allies that have spent years struggling to construct a legitimate vehicle for combating the most vicious war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. ASPA not only prohibits all US cooperation with the International Criminal Court (ICC), it suspends military assistance to any non-NATO member (except certain allies like Israel, Japan and Egypt) that joins the court, rejects participation in any UN peacekeeping operations unless the Security Council exempts American soldiers from prosecution by the court.

And then there is pride, and the American Exceptionalism. America, the unique well of virtue, that force of good, can't possibly be held to the same standard as the Nazis.

W. Patrick Lang


The German parliament approved Hitler's actions and declarations of war, annexations, etc.

So what? Keitel and Jodl et al were condemned by an international tribunal made up of the victors in a war in which Germany was utterly defeated and occupied.

Is that going to happen here? Of course not. I would be among the last ditch defenders of this country.

That does not change the moral terpitude and criminality of the sponsors and advocates of the war in Iraq. Surely, you do not accept the "three card monte" and Kabuki drama of our manipulation of the UN in the pre-war days and months.

We Americans should deal with these people ourselves. Nobody else will do so. Let us not let "K Street," the "Vendu" MSM, and the party apparatchiks destroy Mr. Jefferson's republic.

Us old folks grew up in a better country than this has become. pl

Cold War Zoomie

Col Lang,

I view the Reichstag Fire Decree (1933) as the point at which Hitler was able to really start the ball rolling in his favor. If my memory serves me right, he was then able to consolidate power in parliament and basically rule as a one party state. (On a side note, we have officially entered the land of "Godwin's Law" and I think this will be my last post on this topic.)

The Bush Admin consolidated power by using spin, secrecy, and some pretty dubious methods, but they have not once and for all suspended civil liberties anywhere to the extent as Herr Shicklgruber and his gang. But that doesn't mean they aren't trying.

I'm not that much younger than you are - 43 - and I feel the same way about our country. We'll work it out. Only problem is, some sort of pain and suffering by the middle and lower classes is usually required to turn this ship around.



Lucius Junius Brutus feigned being slow witted hence the moniker "Brutus" to dull the caution of the last Roman king said to be an Etruscan but actually a Hellene, one Lucius Tarquinius Superbus. L.J. Brutus helped expel this king and founded the Roman republic. One of his descendants was one of the assassins of Julius Caesar. Et tu Brute!

L.J.B. is reputed to have instituted a Republican oath. I cannot find a translator program to do it justice. I appeal to the classical scholars of this board.

"In T. Livii, Vol I, Lib II, Cap 1, A.J. Valpy, Londini (1828), p. 352 there is the following Latin version:

"Omnium primum avidum novae libertatis populum, ne postmodum flecti precibus aut donis regiis posset, jurejurando adegit, neminem Romae passuros regnare. (h) …
(h) Compulit ad decernendum addito juramento, fore ut non permitterent quenquam in posterum Romae regem esse."

The Oath of Brutus, whether factual or legendary, had a profound impact on the ancient Romans. Lucius Junius Brutus is quite prominent in English literature, and he was quite popular among British and American Whigs. "

from the wiki article

We find ourselves in similar straits. Our repu

Clifford Kiracofe

This affair raises more issues at every passing moment. This is good.

1.On the economic and financial front, given the very shaky situation in today's international financial situation, what goes on at the IMF and World Bank has real significance. Therefore the Financial Times (London), which called for The Decider to push Wolfie out the door:
The Wall Street Journal, whose editorial page is a Neocon rag and has been for decades, is irrelevant in today's international situation. London has displaced New York as the leading financial center and smart money gives weight to the Financial Times and Economist. Personally, I keep an eye on the reports of the Bank for International Settlements:

2.In essence, under the US Constitution, Congress is vested with the power to DECLARE war and finance it. The President executes the will of Congress and CONDUCTS the war. Congress DECLARED war in WWII but not Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Iraq War. It can be well argued that Congress abandoned its constitutional rights and responsibilities in the "War Powers" area.

3.Under international law, a war of aggression (a "preventive" war) is illegal. A country is lawfully entitled to take measures to respond to immediate threats but the Iraq War was launched as a "preventive war". Recall Gen. Powell's pointing out that it was for "regime change" purposes and that had been legislated on by Congress during the Clinton Administration.

4.Congress rubber stamped the premeditated and preventive Bush Iraq War. There were no serious hearings in Congress to challenge the Administration's war plans. Some Senators and Congressmen did register dissent but about 3/4 of the Senate and House voted on a resolution (of dubious constitutionality in my view) to allow the President TO DECIDE whether to undertake a preventive war. Congress failed in its oversight role and failed to protect its Constitutional role to declare war or not. Hence, it is as much at fault as is the President.

During the run up to the war, I spoke with a very well-informed former US Senator in the first week of September 2002. Expressing my concerns about the real possibility of war, he said: "We ARE going to war." When I then said this would be a disaster, he said, "Yes indeed, but we ARE going to war."

5.Some law enforcement professionals believe there are serious counterintelligence issues with respect to a number of Neocons and these relate to a small foreign power located we can imagine where. I reviewed some of these matters with colleagues as a Senate staffer back during the Iran-Contra investigations and the mess around that Neocon induced policy. [same players as today by the way] The Steve Bryen Case, the Pollard Affair, and the Franklin-AIPAC case are all symptomatic. My understanding, from well informed persons, has been that many such cases have arisen over the years but, for instance, from the Nixon era forward the White House has terminated many such the investigations and avoided prosecutions owing to so-called "national security concerns" (read a certain Lobby).


Wolfowitz suffers from Narcissistic personality disorder. He has a sense of entitlement a mile high, and a total inability to empathise with anyone. That is why he can send people to war, or give a lover a pay rise, and still sleep well at night. He simply doesn't understand what the fuss is all about.

P.S. As Head of the world bank, and a Likudnik, I guess not many muslim countries will get much help from this source.


there is nothing wrong about comparing as opposed to equaling.

The standards set by Nuremberg, such as that war of agression is a war crime, are universally accepted and applicable.

In the absence of a legitimate casus belli, like self defense, the US attack was a war of agression. Wolfowitz successfully pressed for and participated in the war on Iraq and thus is a war criminal.

Of course that doesn't get anywhere near industrialised genocide, but pretty close to, say, invading Poland under a pretext, and killing a lot of people.



When does a country start calling it's wars of choice a "crime"? Only when they start losing? Someone must have some historical examples to share.


Imus had crowed about his a.m. ratings vs CNN's morning show just days before he coughed up his viciously cruel Macaca comment, and the MSM was merciless in its blazing coverage.

The Rutger's team of girls and their coach, unexpectedly thrust into the media spotlight, glowed with grace and goodness quite apart from their epic accomplishment as a team. The contrast between these special girls and and the hurt they indured from Imus's thoughtless slur was stunning and infuriating.

But Imus was constant in his support of the soldiers of this land and loud in his criticisms of a government willing to offer the insultingly low 12 thousand dollars (I think it was) paid to the families of deceased soldiers. "My child is worth more than that,isn't your's?"
He nagged his viewers until 10 million dollars was raised for the Fallen Heroes Hospital because they deserved a top-flight facility for rehabilitation.
As for the Dr. insensitive enough to be jogging around Walter Reed Hospital instead of checking up on the severely injured soldiers within the infamous O.P. wards, Imus's scorn knew no bounds especially when the physician blamed the soldiers for vermin infestion because they left food in their rooms. He actually explained one day that rats or vermin got in through holes in the exterior walls, in case we didn't understand.

His references to BushCo were nearly always refreshingly insulting and he called Dick Cheney- Pork ChopButt.

I shall, perhaps politically incorrectly, miss his a.m. presence.

James Pratt

In what I think is the second worst record of public disinformation on Iraq, then Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz in 2002 fed the Senate Armed Services Committee the same hogwash that Ahmad Chalabi had fed him earlier, despite the warnings of the CIA and Chalabi's record as a convicted embezzler. The worst record is everything Vice President Cheney has said about Iraq since 2001.


Just in case you think the Japanese have the best interests of the United States at heart:

Japanese Finance Minister Koji Omi:

"Personally I know him very well. I rate his work as World Bank president highly. There are various news reports and I don't know about the details, so I would like to decline to comment on that. But I think he's doing a very good job."

People in the United States had better get used to the fact that the people of the other nations of the world are extremely willing to let us make fools of ourselves, send our troops on a fool's mission, gut our economy, and fall down dead.

As Colonel Lang said, we must take care of this problem ourselves.

Clifford Kiracofe

Babak, you observed:
"It seems to me that certain government organs in the United States were taken over by individuals and cliques...."

The issue is considerably deeper than a recent (post WWII) clique of policy types called Neocons swarming around Commentary Magazine and later US Senator "Scoop" Jackson (D-WA) among others.

Consider the following institutional machinery:
Bnai Brith (est. 1843 in New York City)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B'nai_Brith
[for an overview see, Emmanuel Ratier, Mysteres et Secrets du B'Nai B'rith. La plus importante organisation juive internationale (Paris: FACTA, 1993).

Anti-Defamation League (est. 1913 New York City)

American Jewish Committee (est. 1906 New York City)

Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations (est. New York City circa 1956...Suez and all that)

Consider further a despatch of the British Ambassador at Washington (Sir Cecil Spring Rice)to Balfour dated January 19th, 1917:

"....The mysterious relations between the White House and Germany and certain Jewish German financiers are the subject of very common comment. The explanation probably is that as there is a feud between the President and the Christian bankers of Wall Street, the Government is obliged to have recourse to the Israelitish enemies of the New York Philistines..."
[Stephen Gwynn ed., The Letters and Friendships of of Sir Cecil Spring Rice. A Record (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin CO., 1929), Vol. II, p. 373.] For context consult, Stephen Birmingham, Our Crowd. The Great Jewish Families of New York (New York: Harper and Row, 1967). The genealogical tables are useful.

On the last point, you might broaden the analysis out to include the UK. So, for example, see Chaim Bermant, The Cousinhood. A Vivid Account of the English-Jewish Aristocracy Cohens-Rothschilds-Goldsmids-Montefiores-Samuels-Sassoons (New York: The Macmillan Company,1971).

The US President mentioned by Spring Rice was the Neocon hero, Woodrow Wilson, a delusional and unbalanced man. Not a lot has changed over the past century. Inevitable? Apparently.


After reading the FT searing editorial demanding Wolfie's resignation I opened to WSJ to see their view on the matter. They simply couldn't see what the fuss was about. Two "respected" business journals with totally different takes. What am I missing?
Best regards,
Francis Egan

Hi, Francis, here's what you are missing: The Wall Street Journal has an excellent reputation for its reportage, however, this is very different than its editorial content, which is run with an extreme neocon agenda by Paul Gigot:

Paul Gigot is the editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal, a position he's held since September 17, 2001. In this capacity, he is responsible for the newspaper's editorials, op-ed articles and Leisure & Arts criticism and also directs the editorial pages of the Journal's Asian and European editions and the OpinionJournal.com Web site.
He is also the host of the weekly half-hour news program, the Journal Editorial Report, on the Fox News Channel.

Gigot is an ideological cross of William Kristol and Fred Hiatt--which easily explains the reflexive defense of the neocon agenda. Research into the WSJ op-ed's columns about the Iraq war, Scootergate, Presidential wiretapping, the US Attorney scandal and now the Wolfowitz scandal would confirm this assertion.


Regarding Wolfowitz, isn't it ironic that his defenders are using his purported 'fight against corruption' as his defense--as if signing off on his girlfriends illegal raise without any oversight was anything but textbook corruption?


Cold War Zoomie: You live in a Republic where it is law that ANYBODY, citizen or not, may be designated by POTUS alone exercising a discretion so legally unfettered as to make the Marquis de Sade blush, and detained indefinitely until it is seen fit to "try" them before a military tribunal that supplies the investigators, prosecutors, defense and fact finder, with no habeus corpus, as that other great bulwark of your democracy, the Supremes, has recently settled.

You have no civil "rights". Your constituiton has been defied, ignored and suspended by your executive and congress, ratified in the last presidential(hopefully not THE last) election. You merely exist in a state of non-detention at the sufferance of POTUS, (with the connivance of your "legislators")which he has not seen fit to withdraw from YOU.

When they finally came to knock at my door. . . .


I think the only thing that has got the MSM interested in this latest Wolfiebacle is that it involves Wolfie's girlfriend.

I'm waiting for it to hit the National Enquirer, maybe then it will get the electorate's attention.

Clifford Kiracofe

Keeping Wolfie in the larger US policy context, an informed Brit perspective:

"A shadowy Pentagon unit -- the Office of Special Plans, headed by Douglas Feith, former U.S. Under Secretary of Defence for Policy -- deliberately fabricated intelligence linking Saddam Hussein’s regime to al-Qaida in order to incite the United States to make war on Iraq.
....Together with his boss, Paul Wolfowitz, then Deputy Defence Secretary, Douglas Feith was one of an influential group of pro-Israeli neo-conservatives in the Bush administration who exploited the 11 September 2001 terrorist attack on the U.S. to campaign and intrigue for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein....Clearly, in pressing for war, they were primarily concerned to enhance Israel’s security by smashing a major Arab state, thereby removing any potential threat to Israel from the east. As they schemed to transform the region with America’s military power, they dreamed of defeating all of Israel’s enemies -- Arab nationalists, Islamic radicals and Palestinian militants -- at a single stroke. Overthrowing Saddam was to be only the first step in a thorough transformation of the region to the advantage of both Israel and the United States....Israel has a long history of seeking to destabilise its neighbours in the belief that a weak and divided Arab world is to its advantage...."

As an aside, when the so-called Atta lunch in Prague story was floated (first by a retired Israeli general as I seem to recall), I raised the issue with an old friend in Europe with good contacts in the Czech security services. He told me his Czech contacts said that a certain lunch was monitored, and the principles were photographed, but Atta was not one of them and was not there. A Czech politician, for self-serving reasons, in public garbled the story giving a false impression that Atta was there.



It has been reported that during the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, Israeli military officers and diplomats had virtual carte-blanche access to Feith’s offices and those of his boss Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. (Both were investigated earlier in their careers on suspicion of passing secrets to Israel—Feith in 1982, Wolfowitz in 1978.) Former Office of Special Plans employees report that analysts working for Feith who were not uncritically supportive of the U.S.-Israel relationship were weeded out. A Feith associate, analyst Lawrence Franklin, is now serving a 13-year prison term for passing classified information to Israeli Embassy officials.......

Hmmm, US military are calling homosexuals immoral. .... I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is okay to be immoral in any way." Then, General Pace, as an officer who has simply been following orders with regard to the war in Iraq, you have a lot of explaining to do.


don't read too much into it. I don't think that the neo-cons are tools for Israel or Israeli spies. They are in a different league.

That the neo-cons were outraged that Israel didn't attack Syria too last summer suggests to me that they are using each other for mutual advantage, which not neccessarily equals the respective benefit of their countries. It also shows that neither side is taking orders from the other.

As philosopher kings they feel entitled to share information with the Israelis whenever they see fit, trifles, like secrecy legislation or laws anyway be damned.

Positioned well in the executive branch they again have the opportunity to follow the Iran-Contra model, because only sidelining oversight allows them to live out their insanity to the fullest. Nobody in his right mind, knowing of what they do, would give them a green light. That sais something bad about Cheney, not to mention Bush.

They probably like the Israelis because from all the people in the world only the Israeli right is nearly as crazy as the neo-cons. They're soul mates.

Much like a hardcore militarists like Elliot Abrams for instance sees Cuban or Nicaraguan Communists, just like nowadays the Palestinians, Syrians or Iran, as not much more than vermin that must not be talked to, so see right wing Israeli militarists the Arabs I presume.

The mess in Iraq is what Bush got for handing the attack dogs the leash.

International Criminal Law Student

To PL and all,

Let's set the record straight on war crimes and aggression. Contrary to popular belief, the Nuremberg Tribunal's ONLY (or at least its heavily primary) jurisdiction was over war crimes and the crime of "aggressive war". Genocide didn't become law until the 1948 Convention, and crimes against humanity only came in through the war crimes connection. (Persecution of the Jews only came in by being parlayed into "political prisoner" persecution. The Holocaust as such was never addressed by a court until the 1961 Eichmann trial. The Porrajmos - the Nazis' genocide of 4/5 of Europe's Roma - has still never been really addressed.)

Aggressive war as a Nuremberg crime - and the conspiracy to commit it as a crime before the Allied Control Council - was only there because it's what pissed off the victors the most. The Nuremberg Tribunal did not establish an international precedent, but was bounded by the four corners of its Charter.

Now fast forward 50 years to the next international tribunals - Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Cambodia, Sierra Leone - and aggression doesn't really fit. The nature of conflict and atrocity has moved on beyond its earlier conception as something that happens between sovereign nations.

Now we get the ICC. Unlike the 1990s tribunals, the ICC is established by multinational treaty, not by the UN Security Council. This means that the Rome Statute is very much shaped by nation-states' sovereignty concerns, and this time everyone's on board, including the US during the negotiations, not just the winners to some conflict. And what do you think turns up missing? If you said "aggressive war", you're right. (Or rather, the Statute provides jurisdiction over "aggressive war", but only if the parties agree on a definition, and amendments can only happen in 2009 or later, and 7/8 of the 100+ parties have to agree.)

So let's be straight about calling Wolfie a war criminal for starting an aggressive war. While it's technically illegal under international law (see the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact, which has obviously been given little bite), there's no crime. Yes, there should be. Yes, Wolfowitz and Kissinger and all of these bozos should be tried and left to rot in prison. But for now, a "criminal" for instigating a war? Unfortunately, I don't think so. Colonel, you and your readers would do well to argue more from justifiable outrage and less from dim legal principles ("Hague"? "Geneva"? these regulate jus in bello, not jus ad bellum) that don't exist at present.

W. Patrick Lang


"Jodl was accused of conspiracy to commit crimes against peace; planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression; war-crimes; and crimes against humanity"

Wikipedia article on Colonel General Alfred Jodl.

Jodl was convicted and hanged. pl

Clifford Kiracofe

Some bio on Wolfie's girlfriend, although still lack a maiden name, date and place of birth, etc.:
"Last September we reported, "Shaha Aliriza, who has managed to antagonize every office in Washington, DC in which she has been specially assigned by her boyfriend and boss [Wolfowitz], is now serving as a World Bank liaison in South America, according to World Bank sources. Aliriza is divorced from Bulent Aliriza, a Turkish Cypriot who she met at the London School of Economics. Wolfowitz is legally separated from his wife, Clare Selgin. After taking over at the World Bank, Wolfowitz met Aliriza, then the acting manager for the Bank's External Relations and Outreach for the Middle East and North Africa Region. After complaints by employees about Wolfowitz's conflict of interest with an employee, Aliriza was transferred to a joint World Bank/US Agency for International Development (USAID) multinational investment project. After similar complaints, Wolfowitz transferred his friend to South America duties. World Bank sources report that although the Tunis-born Aliriza grew up in Saudi Arabia and is a British citizen, she has Tunisian Jewish roots. Aliriza honed her neo-conservative credentials as a veteran of Ronald Reagan's National Endowment for Democracy and she has been pressuring Wolfowitz to use his position to help 'democratize' the Middle East."
From Wayne Madsen Report,

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad