Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Breaking: 35,000 to 48,000 - NOT 21,000 - DOUBLE the Number Of Troops in "Surge"

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 (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:01 PM
Original message
Breaking: 35,000 to 48,000 - NOT 21,000 - DOUBLE the Number Of Troops in "Surge"
Edited on Thu Feb-01-07 12:04 PM by kpete
Breaking: Double the Troops in "Surge"

President Bush and his new military chiefs have been saying for nearly a month that they would "surge" an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq, in a last, grand push to quell the violence in Baghdad and in Anbar Province. But a new study by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says the real troop increase could be as high as 48,000 -- more than double the number the President initially said.

That's because the combat units that President Bush wants to send into hostile areas need to be backed up by support troops, "including personnel to staff headquarters, serve as military police, and provide communications, contracting, engineering, intelligence, medical, and other services," the CBO notes.

more at:
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003239.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. Raise your hand if you're shocked and/or surprised. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aviation Pro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
20. Not...
...becasue I proffered this several times with no effect since the announcement. The modern ratio of combat troops (Infantry, Armor, Artillery, Special Forces, Cavalry {By God!}, ADA and Combat Engineer) to support troops is about 3:1 (it can be as high as 7:1). Both Bush and Cheney (what are these guys, married?) have been their usual disingenuous selves when speaking to their bosses, the American people.

Impeach, remove, now.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #20
33. Dunno if I can wait that long.
What happened to the good ole days where a good sized mob with torches, pitchforks, and hounds could storm the palace without fear of the military?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
2. Impeach. Indict. Imprison.
And cutting funding for the war is a good idea, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eagler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #2
19. So what the hell are we waiting for?
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Edweird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #19
27. we're waiting for our reps to do their jobs........
Edited on Thu Feb-01-07 12:31 PM by Edweird
but it's taking too damn long. If they even have the will to do what's right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kelly Rupert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #19
30. Investigations. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
momster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #2
55. Cut Funding for those Permanent Bases
and that big-az embassy. Stop building the bases...stop building the embassy. Stop giving tax-money to contractors who don't do their jobs and only got the jobs because they sucked up to the Republican'ts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
3. So they're blatantly lying to us yet again. ENOUGH!
:nuke: :nuke: :nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
4. K&R
:mad: :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MidwestTransplant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
5. People here initially wondered if the surge number included support troops.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone_Star_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
6. The military has become "Hotel California"
You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave.

In this case it's to feed bush's addiction to war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Wow. Hotel CA; apt analogy. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
7. More of the same bullshit.
I think they run us around in circles until we drop from exhaustion. I hate these lying murderers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
halobeam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #7
22. I don't know if it's the proper term
but as I understand what you mean, I refer to that as being bitchslapped.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
8. From where?
Where are we supposed to be pulling these people from? Because we've been deploying support staff on ground patrol for over a year. We're depleted EVERYWHERE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. I read an article recently...
that mentioned troops in Germany were being re-deployed to Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastic cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
10. Holy crap! Can I repost this? Like, NOW? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastic cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Link to the actual report:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
itsmesgd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
13. The reason that the numbers are so different is that thousands are being kept there longer
than their scheduled tour of duty, others are coming earlier, and others are sent in who were out of the rotation. So there might be only 21500 new guys, but no one is able to leave and others are going earlier.

And it is already underway, so let's stop talking about resolutions that condemn the surge.
Let's stop the Iran war before it's to late.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
halobeam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #13
26. I was JUST saying that to someone this morning.
This surge is going on.... congress can make their damn resolution, binding or not, but do it YESTERDAY... Iran is the focus now, (although, we all know, in chimps mind its gonna happen no matter what we say...) I don't shut up in the face of that bullshit, and yes... THAT NEEDS to be done TODAY.

This admin. is counting on the countless amount of hours it takes to go through all the red tape.

We should send our reps SCISSORS... Cut through the bullshit I say!

Damn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal hypnotist Donating Member (391 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #13
40. A Sad Fact
All the talking heads speak like we have thousands of fresh well-trained troops waiting in the wings. I spoke with a forty year old guy that just joined a reserve unit. They told him he'd be sent to Germany or some place safe. He believed em.
The war machine is in full gear and humming along!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 03:30 AM
Response to Reply #40
57. That's what he gets for believing them.
I mean, come on. Who would believe anything a military recruiter told them? I still remember when I was in basic training back in 1969, all the young men saying they had joined based on a promise of some concession like special schooling. The drill sergeant would ask if they had it in writing, and they never did. Sorry, can't help you. Get back in line and shut up.

SSDD
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 07:57 AM
Response to Reply #40
59. Yesterday there was a thread about 56 yr. old woman/National Guard/ driving trucks
in Iraq. Her training and experience was to be assigned as an assistant to a military chaplain. And the thing is all of these so-called "support" troops will be in the middle of the war and as likely as any combat troops to be blown up, blown away, or otherwise slaughtered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Botany Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
14. But that means bush was lying.
For the love of God the news story should be when he tells the truth.

From Wiki

The Congressional Budget Office is a federal agency within the legislative branch of the United States
government. It was created by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
With respect to the estimation of spending for Congress, the Congressional Budget Office serves a
purpose parallel to that of the Joint Committee on Taxation for the estimation of revenue for Congress,
the Department of the Treasury for the estimation of revenues for the executive branch, and the Office
of Management of Budget for the estimation of spending for the executive branch.
The responsibilities of this office include projecting the budgetary effects of proposed legislation.
The main goal is to provide Congress with objective, timely, nonpartisan analyses needed for economic
and budget decisions and with the information and estimates required for the Congressional budget process.
This includes projections on the effect on national debt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
halobeam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:12 PM
Response to Original message
15. from the link above...another snip


SNIP

To reflect some of the uncertainty about the number of support troops, CBO
developed its estimates on the basis of two alternative assumptions. In one
scenario, CBO assumed that additional support troops would be deployed in
the same proportion to combat troops that currently exists in Iraq. That
approach would require about 28,000 support troops in addition to the 20,000
combat troopsa total of 48,000. CBO also presents an alternative scenario
that would include a smaller number of support personnelabout 3,000 per
combat brigadetotaling about 15,000 support personnel and bringing the
total additional forces to about 35,000.


SNIP END
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
16. Double the amount of piss in the wind.
It's a useless gesture trying to cover up a lost war by "sacrificing" more troops and many more Iraqis in a futile attempt to show that an obvious defeat is still salvageable.

CYA politics at it's ugliest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
npincus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
17. defund this motherf*cker, goddammit.
DEMS show your BALLS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kelly Rupert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
18. This shouldn't be surprising to anyone. Bush made it clear
he was committing 21,000 additional combat troops, not 21,000 military personnel. And wherever you have combat units, there needs to be corresponding support units. It's unfortunate, but it isn't a shocker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 03:44 AM
Response to Reply #18
58. Well actually he didn't make it clear.
If Junior would have wanted to make it clear he would have said he's sending 50,000 more troops to Iraq. Just citing the numer of them who are in combat units and not including their support units was an intentional effort to deceive. It worked for awhile too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmavm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
21. So Cheney wasn't woofin' when he said that they'd already made
their minds up and there wasn't a damn thing anyone could do about it.

Only he forgot to say "neener, neener, neener".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #21
51. He's the Vice pResident and we aren't!
:grr: Have I said lately, how much I hate these (and I use the term loosely) people? :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
halobeam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
23. come to think of it, if anyone here signed up for the virtual march to call senators today
I would hope you would bring their attention to the Congressional Budget Office Report pg 2 of 5 stating :

____To reflect some of the uncertainty about the number of support troops, CBO
developed its estimates on the basis of two alternative assumptions. In one
scenario, CBO assumed that additional support troops would be deployed in
the same proportion to combat troops that currently exists in Iraq. That
approach would require about 28,000 support troops in addition to the 20,000
combat troopsa total of 48,000. CBO also presents an alternative scenario
that would include a smaller number of support personnelabout 3,000 per
combat brigadetotaling about 15,000 support personnel and bringing the
total additional forces to about 35,000.______
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. I did not call but I will. Both of my Senators are against the escalation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:22 PM
Response to Original message
24. those troops are not going to Iraq, he will re route them to Iran
this guy must go, he is a madman, and a threat to all of us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kelly Rupert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #24
29. You think 21,500 combat troops can invade Iran? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
endarkenment Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. No. however if this is correct then the 48,000 additional
troops should be sufficient to handle (in their view) any 'problems' that arise as a result of an air campaign against Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kelly Rupert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #32
38. Only the 21,500 are combat troops.
Edited on Thu Feb-01-07 12:35 PM by Kelly Rupert
The rest are support personnel. And none are being deployed to the Shi'a areas in the southeast, where they would be needed in event of war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #38
62. And those little facts will stop them? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #29
36. no but if this report is true about sending more, where will they
end up in Iran, and no amount of troops will be able to take over Iran. I hope it doesn't get to that point, all the more reason why we have to keep on calling our Senators and Reps and tell them no escalation and no funds should go. Bad enough they do not have the equipment for the ones who are there never mind the countless numbers of more troops they want to send.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kelly Rupert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #36
41. This article isn't talking about sending more combat troops.
It's talking about sending support personnel required to maintain an army. All this says is that the human cost of 21,500 troops is even greater than it seems at first blush. That's reason enough to oppose this buildup.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
michaz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:26 PM
Response to Original message
28. Should we be surprised at another lie!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaPeaceful Donating Member (12 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
31. Can we impeach, YET?
PLEASE?!!!!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #31
42. welcome to DU lisapeaceful
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #31
48. Hi LisaPeaceful!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
34. OK, this supports something I was told last week or so.
A friend has a relative who works in supply for our troops. She/he said that he/she found it odd that they wanted supplies for 60,000, not 20,000. I figured they were sending extra supplies to make up for what was worn out, damaged or destroyed.

this friend has a son that was in the Pentagon when the plane struck it on 9-11. He wasn't the source of this story. He's in another branch and specialty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
35. Is this the "secret plan" War Criminal Kissinger is referring to?
Edited on Thu Feb-01-07 12:35 PM by robertpaulsen
It's deja vu all over again.

edited to include this link:

Kissinger: Bush has 'secret plan' to end war

RAW STORY
Published: Thursday February 1, 2007

Former secretary of state Henry Kissinger indicated before the Senate Foreign Relations committee yesterday that President Bush had a "secret plan" to end the war in Iraq, according to the Washington Post.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Kissinger_Bush_has_se...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. they can take their plan and their mission and shove it up their
a$$e$.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
halobeam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. never thought of that.
after reading this last night:

Dick Cheney exposed Valerie Plame to cover up his association with A.Q. Khan's Nuclear Walmart. Read about it here: http://s93118771.onlinehome.us/DU/AMERICANJUDAS.pdf


I would say you have one hell of a handle on the way these deviates work!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #39
46. Thanks.
It's amazing if you look back at Bay of Pigs/Watergate, move on to Iran/Contra, then on to the current Plame/AIPAC/OSP shenanigans, one name is connected with all of them: BUSH!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skip Intro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
43. My roommate's buddy in S Korea told him this weeks ago
My roommate told me that his buddy who had just joined up and was sent to Korea had told him that the increase in troops to Iraq was in the 50,000 range. According to what he was told, there would be the initial surge of 20,000+, followed by a another surge of about the same size. My roomate's buddy had this info because he had been informed that he is one of the ones going.

My gut sez this is all about Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikelgb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
44. Double, double toil and trouble...
Fire burn, and caldron bubble
Double, double toil and trouble
Something wicked this way comes!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wapsie B Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
45. Dear God, will someone please give this idiot a blow-job
so we can impeach his ass?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananarepublican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #45
56. We need either a pair of Foley's un-dry-cleaned pants, or a stained blue dress!
In other words, the BJ has probably taken place, we need to spend over $50M to find the evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
47. we knew this from the beginning, Bush chose his words carefully, he always said "combat" troops
and that means you need twice as many. I wondered when he first started talking about the surge "why does he always say "combat" troops, why not just "troops"? Then I read someplace that we have so many troops in Iraq but only so many are "combat" troops.

That's when I knew, but I do like that people are starting to report the real number.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 07:37 PM
Response to Original message
49. Not going to quit until he "gits" his "amigitin.'"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 07:40 PM
Response to Original message
50. Not surprised, but sickened
...NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aint_no_life_nowhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 07:53 PM
Response to Original message
52. No wonder Bush is looking so happy lately
Telling lies for him is so fulfilling. Lying is his life's calling, his most gratifying and thrilling moments in life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 09:18 PM
Response to Original message
53. Surge becomes Splurge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bohemianguy Donating Member (61 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 09:36 PM
Response to Original message
54. all about the $
The more troops, the more money Halliburton needs to "support" them.

This war has been a fantastic success for Bush and his cronies. Unimaginable piles of money have been made off the backs of the American taxpayer, and since he's only got 2 more years to loot and pillage, he's going to get while the getting is good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wednesdays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
60. So, instead of one drop of water on the frying pan, we get two.
Way to go, chimp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
61. THIS is why tornados are so-o-o-o-o important today!
If the 24/7 crowd is obsessing about weather.. It is to avoid covering this astounding bit of legerdemain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
halobeam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #61
63. Forget the media.
They don't really exist.

One thing that makes me smile WIDE is that they fall so short on the reporting of the Libby trial compared to the liveblogging on firedoglake.com. LOL

It's about time they are shown how insignificant they are becoming. Given a longer period of time, the viewership that they used to USE... will be reading ALL their news from REAL journalists on the web. Just a matter of time. It's quite beautiful the "citizen journalism" we are now becoming.
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 Mon Sep 15th 2014, 12:19 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) 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