Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Is the Obama administration trying to gin up a war with Iran?

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 » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 02:30 PM
Original message
Is the Obama administration trying to gin up a war with Iran?
For those of you who aren't aware of it, a plot was uncovered by the US. This plot involved the rather convoluted plan to hire Mexican drug cartel killers to go after the Saudi ambassador in DC. Supposedly the Iranian suspects went down to Mexico in order to talk to these drug cartel members(what, there's a home office?) and wound up talking to a paid US informant instead.

Well, you know as well as I do how things go when you talk to a paid US informant, you are screwed. These people take your vague wishful thinking and turn it into a full fledged entrapment plot designed to make you look like the next imminent threat, when in reality if left alone you would have gone home and done nothing.

That is what this incident is sounding like more and more. Yet since it involves Iran, Hillary Clinton, our Secretary of State and biggest beater of drums for an Iranian war, has taken it upon herself to get the juices flowing again, trying to get us into an Iranian war.

"The US secretary of state has called for a "very strong message" to be sent to Iran, after allegations of a plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to the US.

Hillary Clinton said Washington was preparing new penalties against Iran, which is already subject to a variety of international sanctions."
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15269348>

And now she escalates it up another notch, calling for international action against Iran over this incident.
"Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is calling an alleged Iranian plot to kill Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States a "dangerous escalation" in Iran's support for terrorism that must draw an international response.

Speaking to a conference in Washington on Wednesday, Clinton urged the rest of the world to join Washington in condemning the alleged scheme, which she said violated U.S. and international law as well as Iran's treaty obligations to protect diplomats. She said the plot was a "reckless act" that "undermines international norms and the international system" and that Iran must be held accountable for its actions."
<http://www.theskanner.com/article/Clinton-Plot-to-Kill-Saudi-Ambassador-a-Dangerous-Escalation-by-Iran-2011-10-12>

Now remember, this is the same Hillary Clinton who, in 2008, called for the http://www.theskanner.com/article/Clinton-Plot-to-Kill-Saudi-Ambassador-a-Dangerous-Escalation-by-Iran-2011-10-12">potential obliteration of Iran. In fact Hillary has beat the drums of war with Iran for years now, and one can't help but think that this is another in a long line of ginned up reasons for the US to try and force war upon Iran.

Is that time coming soon? With the Iraq war winding down, as well as our military involvement in Libya dying out, is the MIC demanding another conflict with which to make massive profit on? Have the lure of vast Iranian natural and strategic resources finally lit the match which will lead to another imperial war, this time with Iran?

I don't know, but all this hoopla over a very suspicious incident does make me think that war with Iran is getting close. Another war that we can't afford, another war that will suck us dry and leave us for dead.

What a sad, shameful way for this country to go.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
1. Deleted message
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
2. No. Next ridiculous question? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. So why is Hillary going all hawkish over a minor sting operation? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Because it's "ridiculous," that's why!
Our betters have spoken, and if you're going to insist on resorting to facts and history, well, you can damn betcha that won't go very well for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Probably because Hillary is a hawk. Always has been.
And because she specializes in being the "bad cop" of US foreign policy.

But to go from "We strenuously object" to "Declaration of war!" is a leap of logic which is completely unsupported.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RZM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Self detete. Wrong spot n/t
Edited on Wed Oct-12-11 02:39 PM by RZM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RZM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. Hawkish with words. That's how we approach Iran. Becaue that's all we really can really do
War with Iran is a long shot and then some. Always has been.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #3
31. This "minor sting operation" amounts to an act of War by the government accused. Educate yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. Really, an act of war?
I don't think that term means what you think it does. Secondly, you are discounting the real possibility that this sting operation is simply something that was ginned up for propaganda purposes. Experts like Richard Clarke are finding that this whole deal is very odd, not the usual way the usually expert Iranian intelligence forces operate.

Educate your own self.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. Attempting to assassinate the ambassador(s) of a country on another nation's shores is the textbook
definition of what constitutes an "act of War." Educate yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. Umm, no
Read your history. There have been several attempted assassinations of ambassadors over the years, decades and centuries, and guess what, no war resulted.

Second of all, the validity of this "plot" is seriously in doubt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. And "guess what" (Sic), there have been many acts of War committed over the centuries that didn't
Edited on Wed Oct-12-11 03:46 PM by apocalypsehow
result in an actual declaration of War by the nation against which the act was perpetuated, so your semantics game is really a meaningless attempt to deflect from the irrefutable truth of my initial assertion to your dubious OP. The instances run the gamut from the impressment of American merchant sailors by the Royal Navy during the Napoleonic Wars to the seizing of the American embassy in Iran in 1979 - and a ton of examples in between.

To get down to seventh grade logic exercises, which is where you have taken this conversation: just because a party commits an act that could call for a lawful response doesn't always mean that the opposing party must commit to carrying out that lawful response.

But, that was your intent all along, wasn't it? To obfuscate, and dodge behind semantics. Which tells me the discussion has concluded, as far as factual repartee between us, and in my favor. Hence, the discussion is concluded: have a great afternoon.

Edit: typo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #38
42. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #31
56. There's no evidence of official gov't involvement, except the US Gov't. You educate yourself.
When a Nigerian national wannabe got caught up in the sting operations centered on al-Awlaki, nobody called for war with Nigeria. This is very much the same situation, but there are those neocon opportunists who do want a war, and the US to fight it. Regardless of the costs to Americans.

Those who are calling for war with Iran are profoundly anti-American, and not our friends. Have you forgotten the deceptions that got us into the Iraq War, already?

Educate yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bowens43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 02:35 PM
Response to Original message
4. probably
he loves playing with his soldiers.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #4
51. +1
i've never seen a so-called Democrat love war as much as Obama. :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #51
55. He's gotta keep the big MIC campaign donors writing those checks
Can't wind down Iraq or Afghanistan unless he's got another war warming up in the bullpens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
6. I certainly hope not (and doubt it)
However, if this turns out to be something real, he will have to figure out a way to respond aggressively to it- hopefully falling way short of any kind of military action. :shrug:

If Bushco were in power, I would worry a LOT more about war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
8. That would be following the neocon agenda
so it wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #8
48. that's right!!!
it's amazing how all of the bad guys FALL right into the PNAC agenda. So, if pinochet had anything to do with the assassination of the chilean ambassador in the US, we should have gone to war with chile. Right? Oh, it seems some parts of our government loves them some murdering dictators.

Obama just signed a little boot's free trade agreement with columbia, one of those stellar democratic countries, who loves murdering unionists, judges and other social activists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaxx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 02:38 PM
Response to Original message
9. You need to make clear that anything above "The US secretary of state has"
is your opinion and not that of the BBC as it looks to be now.

Your opinion isn't news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. So now you want something besides quotations and links
Geez, unable to read for comprehension eh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaxx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. Draw a line or something.
The link encompasses your personal opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. No, I assume that I'm dealing with pretty intelligent people who can read for content
I'm not going to change my writing style for those who aren't and those who can't. You don't like it, too bad, deal with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaxx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. Interesting.
How does the BBC deal with such perfection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. ?
Are you trying to make a funny? If so, it doesn't make sense and it fell flat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpartanDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 02:41 PM
Response to Original message
12. Weren't people like you saying this during the last spat with Iran
Edited on Wed Oct-12-11 02:43 PM by SpartanDem
when the IAEA found them violation of some their sanctions in 2009? Personally I think your tin foil hat screwed too tight.

Tin foil hat threads like this were common

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6530423
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire Walk With Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
14. Weapons of Mass Distraction. And it's working.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 02:43 PM
Response to Original message
15. Deleted message
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
NightWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
16. Didn't Obama just put a PNACer on his Intel staff? (Zelikow)
So yes, it appears that we're moving ahead on the plans
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. That has got to be Hillary's fault.
It is what works for this OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
18. Any chance the Obama administration might release real evidence to back up the Iran gov't plot claim

Sounds like the old entrampment scheme to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tularetom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
20. Somebody needs to sit on Hillary
It seems like she is running a rogue operation at the State Department.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. Read the AP article.
Its at the link with a false label regarding Hillary "wanting to obliterate Iran".

The OP is making shit up about Hillary Clinton but the administration is taking many measured steps. Its actually a comprehensive article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TBF Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #20
32. Sure, that's it ...
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #20
53. Rice is all over this too
meeting with each of all 14 members of the UN Security Council. And now Congress is catching the unquestioning fever for new sanctions too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lunatica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
21. I would think this is the perfect scenario for black ops operation like Obama likes
Did we even have to know about it? Well, no. Not really. We have no say so why are they telling us all about this highly improbably situation? Like the Mexican Cartels are friendly with the Iranians? Really? Is Iran a prime market for drugs? Do they support the Mexican CArtels? With what? Arms, personnel, what? Wasn't this plot babied along by the CIA or FBI or whoever 'stopped it'?

So the fact we're being told about it while they rush to jump to conclusions, impose sanctions, and start the war mongering says more about how they're actually just telling us some lie, again, so they can go to war.

Sorry. I'm too jaded to think otherwise until I see some real proof. You know, the kind that isn't fabricated by US intelligence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 02:52 PM
Response to Original message
23. Sure looks that way
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
24. Whoever dreamed this one up, it looks like not many are taking it as a serious threat. Neocon Fail.
Edited on Wed Oct-12-11 02:57 PM by leveymg
Again. For anyone who still remembers the many transparent lies and the parade of liars that led up to the invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003, let's hope so, anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
monmouth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. It has FBI prints all over it IMO..n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Lots of smudges and false positives. True. But, other Agencies probably involved.
Edited on Wed Oct-12-11 03:09 PM by leveymg
Looks like this whole thing has pretty much an amateur hour production. But, wasn't the lead-up to March 20, 2003, as well? But, nobody dared call the White House and Neocons on it at that time - so close to 9/11. Same MO runs through the whole string of incidents - botched counter-terrorism operations and political opportunism on the part of the usual suspects. This may run all the way back to the East African Embassy Bombings and the USS Cole attack - those were definitely not FBI. Another agency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
monmouth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #29
39. What also ran through my mind was Panetta being concerned his
budget was going to be cut. I'm stretching I'm sure but still...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #39
44. I don't get the sense this was Leon's work, or Bob Gates', either.
The Pentagon budget has so many shadows, caves, and underground caverns, it's possible there are several privatized entities that drink from that endless pool of black slush funds, but this is nothing the SOD would have knowingly and specifically set up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hotler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
30. Yes. The pipeline must go through. eom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #30
46. Indeed. Follow the pipelines to the next war zone.. Here's the latest on Iran's pipelines >
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
35. This match has been lit for a long time...

even within the last 8 years there have been waves of war drum beating against Iran. When will people realize that we can't afford this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
durablend Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #35
49. Of course we can afford this
Pesky crap like Medicare and Social Security and whole bunch of other crap will need to go but not as if anyone important needed them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
37. This from a nation who kills first and doesn't even bother to ask questions (a trial)?
Edited on Wed Oct-12-11 03:47 PM by Dover
And didn't we let the world know that we've given ourselves permission to assassinate world leaders?


So yes, all this chest beating against Iran, whether or not the plot is real, is clearly an attempt to stir
up opposition to Iran to justify some aggressive response. It's probably as bogus as the excuses to attack
Iraq and Afghanistan. As regards our foreign policy especially, there is no difference between Dems and Repubs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #37
52. Biden: It's an outrageous *crime* to go around assassinating people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Capitalocracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
40. And simultaneously create justification for conflating drug trade and terrorism
and further expand the special, emergency, don't-worry-it-could-never-happen-to-you powers the U.S. government has to fight these dangerous, dangerous threats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
41. I fear this is exactly where we are headed.
Edited on Wed Oct-12-11 04:37 PM by woo me with science
A major war is the goal and trump card of the oligarchy.

Our economy is wrecked. We have little real industry apart from the military industrial complex. The population is growing more restless and desperate. I think we will see a steady, purposeful escalation of tensions with Iran and a drumbeat to come together as Americans against a ginned up threat.

And what better way for the private banking cartel to remain indispensable and protected from serious reform, than to ensure an even more urgent need for the loans they provide in order to fund a necessary war?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tuesday Afternoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
43. in a word -
no.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
45. Well, that HAS been a targeted goal for PNAC,
and so far, it seems Obama has gone along with their plan for a NEW (NeoLiberal) American Century,
including a Patriot Act, a Unitary Executive, a peasant Labor Force, a very wealthy Ruling Elite,
and World Domination by Global Banks, Global Resource Extraction Corporations, and the IMF.


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
47. K & R. They certainly are in high level diplomatic overdrive.
Edited on Thu Oct-13-11 01:34 PM by chill_wind
Another couple stories here about that:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2110698&mesg_id=2110698

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2107956&mesg_id=2107956

You would have thought not so distant lessons from "Curveball" would have them thinking a little more quietly for the immediate time-- and quite a bit more cautiously.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
50. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
RebelOne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
54. No way! We cannot afford another war!!
All the middle class is already heading down the road toward poverty. Another war would be the straw that broke the camel's back. We'll all be lining up at the soup kitchens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
57. YES
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 Wed Apr 17th 2024, 09:04 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion 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