Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

REAGAN SCANDALS

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
clarence swinney Donating Member (673 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-19-09 06:47 PM
Original message
REAGAN SCANDALS
PRESIDENT REAGAN SCANDALS

INVESTIGATIONS OF IMPORTANT OFFICIALS

Attorney General—Cabinet--two OIC investigations-no charge
Asst. Attorney General—No Charge
Secretary of Defense—Cabinet—Pardoned
Asst. Sec. Of Defense—Guilty--to Prison
Secretary of Labor—Cabinet—Not Guilty
Secretary of Interior—Cabinet—Guilty—fined
National Security Agency--Director----Cabinet—Guilty
National Security Agency--Director----Cabinet—Guilty—Pardoned
National Security Agency—Director---Cabinet---Resigned
Asst. Secretary of Navy—--Guilty—Fined
Dep. Secretary of Air Force-Guilty—Fined
Director of CIA—Cabinet—Died during investigation
Asst. Director of CIA—Guilty—Fined
Director of HUD—Cabinet--Pled Fifth
Asst. Director of HUD—Guilty
Director of Superfund—Guilty—to Prison
Director of FAA—Guilty-Fined
Director of NASA-Guilty—Fined
Special Asst to President—Guilty
Communications Director for President—Guilty
EPA Administrator—Resigned
Asst. Secretary of State—Guilty

9 Cabinet Members—

REAGANGATES (32)

Illwind-gate (biggie)
Superfund-gate
Hud
Wed-Tech
Interior
Labor
Oval Office
Lt Colonel
Iran-Contra
Basement
Faa
Nasa
Pentagon
Korea
S & L (folks! I think we hit the jackpot—come and get it the vaults are unguarded)
Epa
Postal
Agriculture
Hhs
Home loan
Veterans
Fema
Legal Services
Civil Rights
Transportation
Product Safety
Economic Development
Synthetic Fuels
Social Security
Land Management
Osha
Cia

Sources—
Haynes Johnson book “Sleepwalking”
“When The Pentagon Was For Sale”—Andy Pasztor—(awesome list of criminals). Want Earmarks. Loaded
2 books titled “Scandals”
“The Clothes Lost The Emperor”-Paul Slansky (day by day chronology of 1980’s)
“Stealing From America”—
“Landslide”-Jane Mayer & Doyle McManus

Nathan Miller book states 233 were investigated
Haynes Johnson states 138 were --charged--indicted--found guilty -- investigated


p.s.—Newt and Gang spent $110,000,000-(GAO number) on Hearings and Investigations on Clinton

IMPORTANT---ONE for $110,000,000
and ONE—

(yes 1) person working for President Clinton was Found Guilty of a Felony. Evil man took few trips to ball games , etc. No quid pro quo per OIC –Pals doing what they had done for years—take pal to events. Pled guilty for did not have finances to fight the government and Smaltzsmear. His boss fought 37 such charges and was found not guilty on each charge.

138 charged is more than grand total since 1900.

I would appreciate anyone correcting what I write. I try to be honest but do make errors.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
firedupdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-19-09 07:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. Reagan walks on water as far as the rethugs are concerned...
They love that guy. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-19-09 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. shows how dumb they are
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
livefreest Donating Member (378 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #1
12. he he. that's why i just recommended this thread and bookmarked it
Edited on Wed May-20-09 01:08 AM by livefreest
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arugula Latte Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #1
26. The Republicans were never big on that pesky "reality." Thus, Ronnie is a god to them. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bulloney Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. You heard Hannity practically having an orgasm over Reagan when Ventura was smacking him around?
Hannity is one of the most cognitive-impaired people I've heard and that's saying something, given the Becks, Limbaughs and other clowns on the media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
druidity33 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-19-09 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
2. K&R man, K&R...
I'd love to see Names and Links to those 32 Gates, though...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thothmes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-19-09 07:51 PM
Response to Original message
3. How many were killed in Vietnam by Johnson, how much
money was spent in Vietnam by Johnson. And not one day in prison.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-19-09 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Interesting you'd attack Johnson but not Nixon. Not surprising, but interesting
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thothmes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-19-09 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Nixon didn't start up the War in Vietnam
he inherited it from Johnson. Just like I would not attack President Obama for the current war in Iraq or Afghanistan. He inherited them from the Bush administration. Bush is to blame for Iraq and Afghanistan. Johnson is to blame for Vietnam. Pretty cut and dried.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-19-09 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Uhm, Johnson didn't start the war in Vietnam, either.
He inherited it from Kennedy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thothmes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-19-09 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. What Johnson inherited was a large military advisory
program (about 16,000 men)to the South Vietnames Government. No B52s, No Carrier strike groups, no American lead combat against the VC. By Nov 65, Johnson he had upped the anti to 3 full corps of troops, several squadrons of B-52s and 3 carrier strike groups in the Gulf. All bombing the hell out of North and South Vietnam. American troops now did the fighting in Vietnam, and would do so for seven more years. He blew it up into a full scale war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-19-09 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. It was a war long before Johnson took office.
The US' involvement might not have been close to the level as it was when Pres. Johnson left office, but there was a war going on there.

Had there not been a war or any US involvement, Johnson would not have escalated.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thothmes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 05:42 AM
Response to Reply #11
17. You are correct, it had been going on for a long time
before LBJ. Our participation before Johnson was limited to that as military advisors to the RVN. JFK, was even considering ending that involvement around the time he was assissinated. Lyndon Johnson made it into a very big war and made it an American war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 01:48 AM
Response to Reply #6
13. Kennedy inherited it from Eisenhower.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thothmes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 05:45 AM
Response to Reply #13
18. What Kennedy inherited in January 1961 was
a military advisory program to the RVN with around 900 American troops participating. By the time he was assissinated in Nov 1963, he had upped our participation to 16,000 personnel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #18
24. Here is a good history of Kennedy's involvement and order to withdraw from Vietnam
Kaiser admits that he the Kennedy administration did increase the number of American military personnel in South Vietnam from 600 in 1960 to 17,500 in 1963. However, although he sincerely wanted to help the South Vietnamese government cope with the Viet Cong he rejected war as a way to do so. Kennedy’s view of America’s involvement in Southeast Asia was expressed clearly at his first ever press conference. When asked about Laos he expressed his intentions to help create “a peaceful country – an independent country not dominated by either side but concerned with the life of the people within the country.” (8) This was a marked departure from Eisenhower’s policy of supporting anti-communist military dictatorships in Southeast Asia and the Americas.

This analysis of Kennedy’s foreign policy is supported by two of his most important aides, Kenneth P. O’Donnell and David F. Powers. In their book, Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye: Memories of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, they describe how on 19th January, 1960, Eisenhower briefed Kennedy on “various important items of unfinished business”. This included news about “the rebel force that was being trained by the CIA in Guatemala to invade Cuba.” O’Donnell and Powers claimed that: “Eisenhower urged him to keep on supporting this plan to overthrow Castro. But Eisenhower talked mostly about Laos, which he then regarded as the most dangerous trouble spot in Southeast Asia. He mentioned South Vietnam only as one of the nations that would fall into the hands of the Communists if the United States failed to maintain the anti-Communist regime in Laos.” Kennedy was shocked by what Eisenhower told him. He later told his two aides: “There he sat, telling me to get ready to put ground forces into Asia, the thing he himself had been carefully avoiding for the last eight years.” (9)

According to David Kaiser, it was not only the CIA and the Pentagon who wanted him to send troops to Laos and Vietnam. Members of his own administration, including Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, Dean Rusk, Alexis Johnson, McGeorge Bundy, Walt Rostow and Roswell Gilpatric, were also strongly in favour of Eisenhower’s policy of “intervention in remote areas backed by nuclear weapons”. (10)

Kaiser suggests the reason for this was that “these civilians were all from the GI generation, and to varying degrees they saw themselves as continuing the struggle against aggression and tyranny that had dominated their youth.” However, it has to be remembered that Johnson, McNamara and Gilpatric had all played an important role in the ensuring that General Dynamics got the TFX contract. (11) Is it possible that they had other motives for involving the United States in a long-drawn out war?

Kennedy continued with his policy of trying to develop “independent” Third World countries. In September, 1962, Souvanna Phouma became head of a new coalition government in Laos. This included the appointment of a left-leaning Quinim Pholsema as Foreign Minister. However, Kennedy found it impossible to persuade Ngo Dinh Diem to broaden his government in South Vietnam.

Kennedy continued to resist all attempts to persuade him to send troops to Vietnam. His policy was reinforced by the Bay of Pigs operation. Kennedy told his assistant secretary of state, Roger Hilsman: “The Bay of Pigs has taught me a number of things. One is not to trust generals or the CIA, and the second is that if the American people do not want to use American troops to remove a Communist regime 90 miles away from our coast, how can I ask them to use troops to remove a Communist regime 9,000 miles away? (12)

In April, 1962, Kennedy told McGeorge Bundy to “seize upon any favourable moment to reduce our involvement” in Vietnam. (13) In September, 1963, Robert Kennedy expressed similar views at a meeting of the National Security Council: “The first question was whether a Communist takeover could be successfully resisted with any government. If it could not, now was the time to get out of Vietnam entirely, rather than waiting.” (14)

The decision by Kennedy to withdraw from Vietnam was confirmed by John McCone, the director of the CIA: “When Kennedy took office you will recall that he won the election because he claimed that the Eisenhower administration had been weak on communism and weak in the treatment of Castro and so forth. So the first thing Kennedy did was to send a couple of men to Vietnam to survey the situation. They came back with the recommendation that the military assistance group be increased from 800 to 25,000. That was the start of our involvement. Kennedy, I believe, realized he'd made a mistake because 25,000 US military in a country such as South Vietnam means that the responsibility for the war flows to (the US military) and out of the hands of the South Vietnamese. So Kennedy, in the weeks prior to his death, realized that we had gone overboard and actually was in the process of withdrawing when he was killed and Johnson took over.” (15)

On 1st April, 1963, the attempt by Kennedy to create a all-party coalition government in Laos suffered a terrible blow when Quinim Pholsema, the left-wing Foreign Minister, was assassinated. As David Kaiser has pointed out: “In light of subsequent revelations about CIA assassination plots, this episode inevitably arouses some suspicion.” (16)

It would seem that Laos was not the only country where Kennedy was trying to develop a coalition government. According to Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartman, in the early months of 1963, a plan was put into action that would result in a palace coup led by “one of Castro’s inner circle, himself a well-known revolutionary hero.” Waldron and Hartman argue that the “coup leader would be part of the new Provisional Government in Cuba, along with a select group of Cuban exiles – approved by the Kennedys – who ranged from conservative to progressive.” (17)

Kennedy told Mike Mansfield in the spring of 1963 that he now agreed with his thinking “on the need for a complete military withdrawal from Vietnam”. After the meeting with Mansfield, Kennedy told Kenneth O’Donnell that when he pulled out of Vietnam in 1965: “I’ll become one of the most unpopular Presidents in history. I’ll be damned everywhere as a communist appeaser. But I don’t care. If I tried to pull out completely now from Vietnam, we would have Joe McCarthy red scare on our hands, but I can do it after I’m re-elected. So we had better make damned sure that I am reelected.” (18)

In his book, Sons & Brothers, Richard D. Mahoney remarked: “Truman had lost his presidency over the “loss of China,” which in turn had touched off the anticommunist witch hunts by Senator Joseph McCarthy. Troubled as Kennedy was about slipping into the Asian land war, he temporized on the method of disengagement.” (19)

On 10th June, 1963, Kennedy made a commencement address at the American University. “In a speech written in the White House without Pentagon or State Department clearance, Kennedy called specifically, and for the first time, for a whole new attitude towards the soviet union and a greater effort for true peace.” (20)

Nine days later Kennedy discussed a new proposal by the State Department to take overt military action against North Vietnam. Kennedy was told that the Pentagon wanted to start bombing North Vietnam and the mining of North Vietnamese ports. (21)

As David Kaiser points out in American Tragedy, Kennedy refused to approve this plan: “Ever since assuming the Presidency, Kennedy had received a long series of proposals for war in Southeast Asia from the State and Defence Departments. Rejecting them all, he had established the goals of a neutral regime in Laos and an effort to assist the South Vietnamese against the Viet Cong.” (22)

Kennedy continued to have problems from the leaders of the military. On 9th July, 1963, General Maxwell Taylor explained to the National Security Council that individual Joint Chiefs did not believe that an atmospheric test ban would serve the nation well. Sixteen days later, Averell Harriman, Andrei Gromyko and Lord Hailsham signed the atmospheric test ban in Moscow.

On 14th August, Diem was informed that the U.S. government would be unable to continue their present relationship if Diem did not issue a statement reaffirming a conciliatory policy towards the Buddhists and other critics of his regime. Ten days later, Ted Szulc of the New York Times reported that “policy planners in Washington” had reached the stage where they would prefer a military junta in South Vietnam to a government ruled by Diem. (23)

Kennedy also gave the order for the withdrawal of 1,000 American personnel by the end of 1963. The plan involved taking the men out in four increments, in order to achieve maximum press coverage. General Maxwell Taylor spoke out against this policy and argued that the Joint Chiefs of Staff believed no withdrawal of troops should take place “until the political and religious tensions now confronting the government of South Vietnam have eased.” (24)

In an interview with Walter Cronkite on 2nd September, Kennedy clearly stated his policy on Vietnam: “I don’t think that unless a greater effort is made by the government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it.” Kennedy then went on to criticize Diem’s “repressions against the Buddhists”. (25)

On 9th September, Henry Cabot Lodge met with Diem and threatened him that aid would be cut-off unless Ngo Dinh Nhu left his government. Yet according to a New York Times story, the CIA continued to back Nhu. This included John Richardson, the Saigon CIA station chief disbursing a regular monthly payment of $250,000 to Nhu and his men. (26) Four days later, Lodge suggested that Richardson should be ordered back to Washington as “he symbolized long-standing American support for Nhu.” John McCone defended Richardson and objected to the idea that he should be replaced by someone like Edward Lansdale.

Kennedy met with Robert McNamara and General Maxwell Taylor on 2nd October, 1963. Kennedy told McNamara to announce to the press the immediate withdrawal of one thousand soldiers from Vietnam. Kennedy added that he would “probably withdraw all American forces from Vietnam by the end of 1965”. When McNamara was leaving the meeting to talk to the white house reporters, Kennedy called to him: “And tell them that means all of the helicopter pilots too.” In his statement to the press McNamara softened the President’s views by stating that in his judgment “the major part of the U.S. military task” in Vietnam could be “completed by the end of 1965.” (27)

Diem and Nhu were murdered on 1st November, 1963. The news reached Kennedy the following day. According to David Kaiser, Kennedy “left the room in shock”. (28) Despite this news, Kennedy made no move to change or cancel his troop reduction. As his aides, Kenneth P. O’Donnell and David F. Powers pointed out: “The collapse of the Diem government and the deaths of its dictatorial leaders made the President only more skeptical of our military advice from Saigon and more determined to pull out of the Vietnam War.” (29)

It has been suggested by William Colby, Frederick Nolting, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon that Kennedy had ordered Diem’s assassination. There is no evidence for this view. In fact, the behaviour of Diem was giving Kennedy a good excuse to withdraw support for his government. Kennedy knew that Diem was incapable of providing a coalition government that would gain the support of the South Vietnamese people. Robert Kennedy argued against the assassination of Diem as it would leave the government in the “hands of one man that we don’t know very well.” (30) The Kennedy brothers were aware that the man who took control in South Vietnam would probably be no better than Diem at establishing a coalition government. The assassination of Diem was therefore not part of Kennedy’s policy to withdraw from Vietnam.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6274
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Soylent Brice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #6
23. kennedy inherited it from eisenhower.
the first US support were sent in the 50's.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-19-09 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. So because he inherited the war, the crimes committed after his inauguration don't count?
:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thothmes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-19-09 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #7
8.  Did I mention crimes committed by Johnson, no I did not.
the issue was the start of a major war in Vietnam, which was Johnson's responsibility. Nixon was responsible for continuing a war that he could have ended much sooner that he did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 01:49 AM
Response to Reply #8
14. No. Eishenhower started the Vietnam War.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thothmes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #14
31. Self Deleted, wrong post
Edited on Wed May-20-09 06:01 PM by Thothmes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thothmes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #14
32. Sending a few hundred military advisors to a county does not
constitute starting a war. You start a war when your soldiers become the primary combatants, and are sent there by the tens of thousands. You start a war when you send dozens of squadrons of your Air Force and your Navys carriers to bomb the opposition night and day. That is what Lydon Johnson did. JMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 04:36 AM
Response to Reply #8
15. why would you complain Johnson never spent a day in prison if you weren't talking about crimes?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thothmes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 05:47 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. I stand corrected
Lyndon Johnson should have been prosecuted for war crimes and imprisoned. Richard Nixon should have been prosecuted for war crimes and imprisoned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #19
25. Reagan should have been prosecuted fro war crimes and imprisoned too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thothmes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #25
33. What does he have to do with Vietnam
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. Nothing that I know of in terms of Vietnam, but
I think he is a criminal in relation to Iran-Contra.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Optical.Catalyst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 05:03 AM
Response to Original message
16. The Wedtech scandal with Edwin Meese throwing down field blocks at the investigation
Wedtech is a classic no bid defense contract job under a Republican Administration. Bought and paid for through campaign donations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democracy1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 05:49 AM
Response to Original message
20. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indepat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 09:51 AM
Response to Original message
21. These are but mere piffles not amounting to a hill of beans in the rush to deify the sanctified
gipper. :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AngryAmish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 10:00 AM
Response to Original message
22. Why isn't this in LBN?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
27. Thanks to John Kerry whose investigations uncovered IranContra, BCCI, Iraqgate, S&L crimes, and CIA
drugrunning.

Then Bill Clinton came along and helped coverup many of the OUTSTANDING MATTTERS that should have put Bush and his cronies in jail for treason, and put Reagan's legacy in its ACCURATE place.


But, Clinton never had any intention of being for accountability and open government because he was ON THE SAME TEAM - Jackson Stephens made sure of that before he bankrolled Bill's presidential campaign.

Funny how Bartcop always forgets that it was thanks to Kerry (who he hates) that we even know as much about BFEE's criminal operations in the 80s and 90s as we do, and thanks to Clinton (who he loves) that BFEE was protected throughout the 90s from the further scrutiny Kerry requested when he turned over his BCCI report in Dec 1992 to the incoming Clinton administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SIMPLYB1980 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Yep just like everything else it's all the fault of the Clenis.
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. Not everything - but you are welcome to explain why Reagan and Bush1 easily rehabbed their legacies
throughout the 90s and why Clinton doesn't bear any responsibility.

I welcome your view on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 02:34 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC