Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The B-52 Incident – An Unfolding Saga of Villains, Scapegoats and Heroes

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 » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 08:58 AM
Original message
The B-52 Incident – An Unfolding Saga of Villains, Scapegoats and Heroes
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_michael__071020_the_b_52_incident__96_.htm

The B-52 Incident – An Unfolding Saga of Villains, Scapegoats and Heroes

by Michael Salla, Ph.D


On October 19, the findings of an official Air Force investigation of the unprecedented flight of a nuclear armed B-52 bomber across the U.S. on August 30 was announced at a Pentagon press conference. The Secretary of the Air Force, Michael Wynne, opened the press conference by remarking that the Air Force would depart from its normal policy of silence on the movements of nuclear weapons; and, given the seriousness of the B-52 incident, would make public the movements of the Advanced Cruise missiles involved. He said: "We would not be this upset with ourselves, nor be striving to restore confidence, if this did not involve nuclear weapons." The seriousness of the incident was so great that it was given “Bent Spear” status which meant it was a nuclear mishap that had to be reported directly to the Secretary of Defense and the White House.

snip//

What emerges from the official Air Force investigation is that internal efforts to identify and make accountable those ultimately responsible for the B-52 Bent Spear incident have failed. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral William Fallon, Commander of Central Command, have indicated their opposition to a preemptive nuclear attack on Iran. It is highly likely that they were genuinely surprised by the B-52 incident, and lost an internal power struggle to reveal what was really occurring. They were likely opposed by the remaining neo-conservatives that are led by Vice President Cheney. By attributing the B-52 incident to multiple human errors, both sides in the internal military and government struggle over the merits of a preemptive attack against Iran, have given themselves time to step back from the brink and consider their next move. It is unlikely that the neoconservative faction will give up on its efforts to move forward with a preemptive attack against Iran. At the same time, a determined group of military officials are opposed to such an attack, and are exposing covert plans for this to occur without the support of most of the American military and general public.

Furthermore, it is worth considering that the initial Military Times report on September 5 reported five nuclear missiles being found at Barksdale AFB. This was updated to six in a revised article by the same reporter on September 10. According to Madsen, his intelligence sources said only five advanced nuclear cruise missiles were found at Barksdale, after six left Minot AFB. So if one nuclear missile is still missing, then attention needs to be placed on those factions within the U.S. military and government that would benefit from the covert use of a nuclear weapon in the Middle East. Attention needs to be placed on those ultimately behind the B-52 incident, most likely based within the Office of the Vice President. It is therefore very possible that the B-52 incident involved two covert missions.

The official investigation of the B-52 Bent Spear incident was unsatisfactory since there are simply too many unanswered questions concerning how six nuclear weapons could be loaded onto the pylons of a B-52 without being noticed by highly trained personnel. Even though reporters such as Walter Pincus go to great lengths to describe how such mistakes could have occurred , others remain highly dubious. According to Dave Lindorff, a Naval officer claims that “it would be simply impossible for those weapons to have been moved out of the storage bunker. He claims to know for a certainty that all nuclear weapons in the US arsenal are equipped with high-tech tags (“like they have at WalMart and Kmart only better”) that would instantly trigger alarms when the weapons are moved, unless they were deliberately disarmed.” .

Finally, the official investigation was disappointing since it vilified Air Force personnel, rather than leveling with the American public over the covert mission the B-52 was engaged in. Air Force personnel were either unfairly scapegoated for following classified orders directly from senior officials in the Bush administration; or were true American patriots refusing to follow illegal orders sanctioning a preemptive nuclear attack against Iran. The B-52 incident is an unfolding saga involving villains, scapegoats and heroes. It is up to the general public and media to expose the real villains, and to identify the genuine heroes in exposing the dangers involved in the nuclear armed B-52 flown across the U.S. to Barksdale AFB on one or more covert missions.



www.exopolitics.org

Dr. Michael Salla is an internationally recognized scholar in international politics, conflict resolution, US foreign policy and the new field of 'exopolitics'. He is author/editor of five books; and held academic appointments in the School of International Service& the Center for Global Peace, American University, Washington DC (1996-2004); the Department of Political Science, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia (1994-96); and the Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University, Washington D.C., (2002). He has a Ph.D in Government from the University of Queensland, Australia, and an M.A. in Philosophy from the University of Melbourne, Australia. He has conducted research and fieldwork in the ethnic conflicts in East Timor, Kosovo, Macedonia, and Sri Lanka, and organized peacemaking initiatives involving mid to high level participants from these conflicts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 09:03 AM
Response to Original message
1. What facts support a "covert mission the B-52 was engaged in"? Salla may be an expert in some areas
but he knows nothing about USAF procedures for storage and handling of special weapons.

The article as written is pure :tinfoilhat:!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. And I suppose you do, just like your knowledge about everything else. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Yes. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. There you go proving it with facts - again. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #4
13. It's a question of default hypotheses.
If the default hypothesis is that human error is only a reasonable explanation once all other possibilities have been excluded beyond all (or at least all reasonable) doubt, you wind up with a lot of hypotheses.

It's a general principle that you usually have to limit your set of hypotheses, simply on practical grounds. You can't test everything to the extent you'd like. But you need a basis for narrowing the set. Usually we use plausibility, given reasonable assumptions about default hypotheses.

If you narrow your set of hypothesis by politics, then you've saved yourself some work. But you've usually redefined "default hypothesis" in a strange way.

Default-hypothesis considerations form the basis of the thinking behind "innocent until proven guilty" and describing reversing the burden of proof as a fallacy. Occam's Razor is a constraint on the formulation of default hypotheses.

Producing non-obvious default hypotheses usually constitutes begging the question: We know there's a conspiracy, that they didn't prove there's a conspiracy constitutes proof of the conspiracy--and that's the only proof we need for a conspiracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 09:22 AM
Response to Original message
5. Go to this guy's website and decide for yourself how credible he is
From his website:

"Exopolitics is the study of the key individuals, institutions and political processes associated with extraterrestrial life. This website produces exopolitics research papers using scholarly standards and methods developed by the Founder from almost two decades of academic research in a number of major universities. The exopolitics papers focus on the political implications of an extraterrestrial presence known to clandestine government organizations who keep official knowledge of this presence secret from the general public and elected political officials. The supporting evidence is overwhelming in scope and shows that decision making is restricted to a small group of officials drawn primarily from the military and intelligence branches of various national governments who operate on a strict 'need to know' basis. The policies and appointments of these officials are conducted in ways that 'stretch' or break accepted constitutional processes."

Here's some examples of "articles" linked to on the website:

Exopolitics Comment #59 (October 19, 2007) Photographic Analysis Confirms that Space Shuttle Columbia was Destroyed by a Plasma Beam Weapon

Exopolitics Comment #55 (August 16, 2007) - Will the Cassini Space probe be used as a nuclear trigger to ignite Saturn and terraform its moons for human colonization?

Exopolitics Comment #54 (July 16, 2007) - The Illuminati versus Chinese Secret Societies: Exopolitical Implications of a Covert Global Depopulation Policy & Staged Extraterrestrial Invasion

Research Study #11 (August 12, 2006) - Divine Strake vs. Divine Strike - Did Extraterrestrials Deter the Pentagon from a Premptive Nuclear War Against Iran



This guy is laughable. I rest my case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. You're the person who believes the government's account is credible-I
Edited on Sun Oct-21-07 09:32 AM by babylonsister
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. I see...
In other words, you know enough about me to know I am some sort of dupe. Amazing. Instead of addressing what I provided, you've decided I'm suspect because I "believe the government's account is credible", rather than taking into account the research and reading I have done.

For your information, I never take something I read to be automatically true (well, except that, if a newspaper notes that today is Sunday and you know that it's Sunday, no further research is necessary). I am calling Salla's credibility into question based upon his own writings. And, yes, I believe that the "official story" is, at least in this case, far more believable than Salla's silly scribbling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HereSince1628 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
6. This is sourcing Madsen. Madsen isn't credible and so neither
are the parts of this that are drawn from his earlier report.

It's plenty scary enough to know that the many safeguards we have always been assured are in place regarding handling and loading nukes onto a war plane failed. The story doesn't need mistakes in reporting to yield arithmetic that is spun into a lost nuke for sizzle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. You're right, I generally don't consider Madsen credible.
This whole story is truly frightening, and I don't for one minute think what we're being told is the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 09:30 AM
Response to Original message
7. Read this, then decide whether you think Walter Pincus or Michael Salla is more believable
Personally, my money is on Pincus...

Missteps in the Bunker

By Joby Warrick and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, September 23, 2007; A01



Just after 9 a.m. on Aug. 29, a group of U.S. airmen entered a sod-covered bunker on North Dakota's Minot Air Force Base with orders to collect a set of unarmed cruise missiles bound for a weapons graveyard. They quickly pulled out a dozen cylinders, all of which appeared identical from a cursory glance, and hauled them along Bomber Boulevard to a waiting B-52 bomber.

The airmen attached the gray missiles to the plane's wings, six on each side. After eyeballing the missiles on the right side, a flight officer signed a manifest that listed a dozen unarmed AGM-129 missiles. The officer did not notice that the six on the left contained nuclear warheads, each with the destructive power of up to 10 Hiroshima bombs.

That detail would escape notice for an astounding 36 hours, during which the missiles were flown across the country to a Louisiana air base that had no idea nuclear warheads were coming. It was the first known flight by a nuclear-armed bomber over U.S. airspace, without special high-level authorization, in nearly 40 years.

The episode, serious enough to trigger a rare "Bent Spear" nuclear incident report that raced through the chain of command to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and President Bush, provoked new questions inside and outside the Pentagon about the adequacy of U.S. nuclear weapons safeguards while the military's attention and resources are devoted to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Three weeks after word of the incident leaked to the public, new details obtained by The Washington Post point to security failures at multiple levels in North Dakota and Louisiana, according to interviews with current and former U.S. officials briefed on the initial results of an Air Force investigation of the incident.

The warheads were attached to the plane in Minot without special guard for more than 15 hours, and they remained on the plane in Louisiana for nearly nine hours more before being discovered. In total, the warheads slipped from the Air Force's nuclear safety net for more than a day without anyone's knowledge.

"I have been in the nuclear business since 1966 and am not aware of any incident more disturbing," retired Air Force Gen. Eugene Habiger, who served as U.S. Strategic Command chief from 1996 to 1998, said in an interview.

A simple error in a missile storage room led to missteps at every turn, as ground crews failed to notice the warheads, and as security teams and flight crew members failed to provide adequate oversight and check the cargo thoroughly. An elaborate nuclear safeguard system, nurtured during the Cold War and infused with rigorous accounting and command procedures, was utterly debased, the investigation's early results show.

The incident came on the heels of multiple warnings -- some of which went to the highest levels of the Bush administration, including the National Security Council -- of security problems at Air Force installations where nuclear weapons are kept. The risks are not that warheads might be accidentally detonated, but that sloppy procedures could leave room for theft or damage to a warhead, disseminating its toxic nuclear materials.

A former National Security Council staff member with detailed knowledge described the event as something that people in the White House "have been assured never could happen." What occurred on Aug. 29-30, the former official said, was "a breakdown at a number of levels involving flight crew, munitions, storage and tracking procedures -- faults that never were to line up on a single day."

Missteps in the Bunker

The air base where the incident took place is one of the most remote and, for much of the year, coldest military posts in the continental United States. Veterans of Minot typically describe their assignments by counting the winters passed in the flat, treeless region where January temperatures sometimes reach 30 below zero. In airman-speak, a three-year assignment becomes "three winters" at Minot.

The daily routine for many of Minot's crews is a cycle of scheduled maintenance for the base's 35 aging B-52H Stratofortress bombers -- mammoth, eight-engine workhorses, the newest of which left the assembly line more than 45 years ago. Workers also tend to 150 intercontinental ballistic missiles kept at the ready in silos scattered across neighboring cornfields, as well as hundreds of smaller nuclear bombs, warheads and vehicles stored in sod-covered bunkers called igloos.

"We had a continuous workload in maintaining" warheads, said Scott Vest, a former Air Force captain who spent time in Minot's bunkers in the 1990s. "We had a stockpile of more than 400 . . . and some of them were always coming due" for service.

Among the many weapons and airframes, the AGM-129 cruise missile was well known at the base as a nuclear warhead delivery system carried by B-52s. With its unique shape and design, it is easily distinguished from the older AGM-86, which can be fitted with either a nuclear or a conventional warhead.

Last fall, after 17 years in the U.S. arsenal, the Air Force's more than 400 AGM-129s were ordered into retirement by then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. Minot was told to begin shipping out the unarmed missiles in small groups to Barksdale Air Force Base near Shreveport, La., for storage. By Aug. 29, its crews had already sent more than 200 missiles to Barksdale and knew the drill by heart.

The Air Force's account of what happened that day and the next was provided by multiple sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the government's investigation is continuing and classified.

At 9:12 a.m. local time on Aug. 29, according to the account, ground crews in two trucks entered a gated compound at Minot known as the Weapons Storage Area and drove to an igloo where the cruise missiles were stored. The 21-foot missiles were already mounted on pylons, six apiece in clusters of three, for quick mounting to the wings of a B-52.

The AGM-129 is designed to carry silver W-80-1 nuclear warheads, which have a variable yield of between 5 and 150 kilotons. (A kiloton is equal to the explosive force of 1,000 tons of TNT.) The warheads were meant to have been removed from the missiles before shipment. In their place, crews were supposed to insert metal dummies of the same size and weight, but a different color, so the missiles could still be properly attached under the bomber's wings.

A munitions custodian officer is supposed to keep track of the nuclear warheads. In the case of cruise missiles, a stamp-size window on the missile's frame allows workers to peer inside to check whether the warheads within are silver. In many cases, a red ribbon or marker attached to the missile serves as an additional warning. Finally, before the missiles are moved, two-man teams are supposed to look at check sheets, bar codes and serial numbers denoting whether the missiles are armed.

Why the warheads were not noticed in this case is not publicly known. But once the missiles were certified as unarmed, a requirement for unique security precautions when nuclear warheads are moved -- such as the presence of specially armed security police, the approval of a senior base commander and a special tracking system -- evaporated.

The trucks hauled the missile pylons from the bunker into the bustle of normal air base traffic, onto Bomber Boulevard and M Street, before turning onto a tarmac apron where the missiles were loaded onto the B-52. The loading took eight hours because of unusual trouble attaching the pylon on the right side of the plane -- the one with the dummy warheads.

By 5:12 p.m., the B-52 was fully loaded. The plane then sat on the tarmac overnight without special guards, protected for 15 hours by only the base's exterior chain-link fence and roving security patrols.

Air Force rules required members of the jet's flight crew to examine all of the missiles and warheads before the plane took off. But in this instance, just one person examined only the six unarmed missiles and inexplicably skipped the armed missiles on the left, according to officials familiar with the probe.

"If they're not expecting a live warhead it may be a very casual thing -- there's no need to set up the security system and play the whole nuclear game," said Vest, the former Minot airman. "As for the air crew, they're bus drivers at this point, as far as they know."

The plane, which had flown to Minot for the mission and was not certified to carry nuclear weapons, departed the next morning for Louisiana. When the bomber landed at Barksdale at 11:23 a.m., the air crew signed out and left for lunch, according to the probe.

It would be another nine hours -- until 8:30 p.m. -- before a Barksdale ground crew turned up at the parked aircraft to begin removing the missiles. At 8:45, 15 minutes into the task, a separate missile transport crew arrived in trucks. One of these airmen noticed something unusual about the missiles. Within an hour, a skeptical supervisor had examined them and ordered them secured.

By then it was 10 p.m., more than 36 hours after the warheads left their secure bunker in Minot.

Once the errant warheads were discovered, Air Force officers in Louisiana were alarmed enough to immediately notify the National Military Command Center, a highly secure area of the Pentagon that serves as the nerve center for U.S. nuclear war planning. Such "Bent Spear" events are ranked second in seriousness only to "Broken Arrow" incidents, which involve the loss, destruction or accidental detonation of a nuclear weapon.

The Air Force decided at first to keep the mishap under wraps, in part because of policies that prohibit the confirmation of any details about the storage or movement of nuclear weapons. No public acknowledgment was made until service members leaked the story to the Military Times, which published a brief account Sept. 5.

Officials familiar with the Bent Spear report say Air Force officials apparently did not anticipate that the episode would cause public concern. One passage in the report contains these four words:

"No press interest anticipated."

'What the Hell Happened Here?'

The news, when it did leak, provoked a reaction within the defense and national security communities that bordered on disbelief: How could so many safeguards, drilled into generations of nuclear weapons officers and crews, break down at once?

Military officers, nuclear weapons analysts and lawmakers have expressed concern that it was not just a fluke, but a symptom of deeper problems in the handling of nuclear weapons now that Cold War anxieties have abated.

"It is more significant than people first realized, and the more you look at it, the stranger it is," said Joseph Cirincione, director for nuclear policy at the Center for American Progress think tank and the author of a history of nuclear weapons. "These weapons -- the equivalent of 60 Hiroshimas -- were out of authorized command and control for more than a day."

The Air Force has sought to offer assurances that its security system is working. Within days, the service relieved one Minot officer of his command and disciplined several airmen, while assigning a major general to head an investigation that has already been extended for extra weeks. At the same time, Defense Department officials have announced that a Pentagon-appointed scientific advisory board will study the mishap as part of a larger review of procedures for handling nuclear weapons.

"Clearly this incident was unacceptable on many levels," said an Air Force spokesman, Lt. Col. Edward Thomas. "Our response has been swift and focused -- and it has really just begun. We will spend many months at the air staff and at our commands and bases ensuring that the root causes are addressed."

While Air Force officials see the Minot event as serious, they also note that it was harmless, since the six nuclear warheads never left the military's control. Even if the bomber had crashed, or if someone had stolen the warheads, fail-safe devices would have prevented a nuclear detonation.

But independent experts warn that whenever nuclear weapons are not properly safeguarded, their fissile materials are at risk of theft and diversion. Moreover, if the plane had crashed and the warheads' casings cracked, these highly toxic materials could have been widely dispersed.

"When what were multiple layers of tight nuclear weapon control internal procedures break down, some bad guy may eventually come along and take advantage of them," said a former senior administration official who had responsibility for nuclear security.

Some Air Force veterans say the base's officers made an egregious mistake in allowing nuclear-warhead-equipped missiles and unarmed missiles to be stored in the same bunker, a practice that a spokesman last week confirmed is routine. Charles Curtis, a former deputy energy secretary in the Clinton administration, said, "We always relied on segregation of nuclear weapons from conventional ones."

Former nuclear weapons officials have noted that the weapons transfer at the heart of the incident coincides with deep cuts in deployed nuclear forces that will bring the total number of warheads to as few as 1,700 by the year 2012 -- a reduction of more than 50 percent from 2001 levels. But the downsizing has created new accounting and logistical challenges, since U.S. policy is to keep thousands more warheads in storage, some as a strategic reserve and others awaiting dismantling.

A secret 1998 history of the Air Combat Command warned of "diminished attention for even 'the minimum standards' of nuclear weapons' maintenance, support and security" once such arms became less vital, according to a declassified copy obtained by Hans Kristensen, director of the Federation of American Scientists' nuclear information project.

The Air Force's inspector general in 2003 found that half of the "nuclear surety" inspections conducted that year resulted in failing grades -- the worst performance since inspections of weapons-handling began. Minot's 5th Bomb Wing was among the units that failed, and the Louisiana-based 2nd Bomb Wing at Barksdale garnered an unsatisfactory rating in 2005.

Both units passed subsequent nuclear inspections, and Minot was given high marks in a 2006 inspection. The 2003 report on the 5th Bomb Wing attributed its poor performance to the demands of supporting combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wartime stresses had "resulted in a lack of time to focus and practice nuclear operations," the report stated.

Last year, the Air Force eliminated a separate nuclear-operations directorate known informally as the N Staff, which closely tracked the maintenance and security of nuclear weapons in the United States and other NATO countries. Currently, nuclear and space operations are combined in a single directorate. Air Force officials say the change was part of a service-wide reorganization and did not reflect diminished importance of nuclear operations.

"Where nuclear weapons have receded into the background is at the senior policy level, where there are other things people have to worry about," said Linton F. Brooks, who resigned in January as director of the National Nuclear Security Administration. Brooks, who oversaw billions of dollars in U.S. spending to help Russia secure its nuclear stockpile, said the mishandling of U.S. warheads indicates that "something went seriously wrong."

A similar refrain has been voiced hundreds of times in blogs and chat rooms popular with former and current military members. On a Web site run by the Military Times, a former B-52 crew chief who did not give his name wrote: "What the hell happened here?"

A former Air Force senior master sergeant wrote separately that "mistakes were made at the lowest level of supervision and this snowballed into the one of the biggest mistakes in USAF history. I am still scratching my head wondering how this could happened."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sam sarrha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
9. i heard the ground security officer who reported this was found dead in his apartment a short time
later..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. I heard that....
Edited on Sun Oct-21-07 10:34 AM by SDuderstadt
he was screwing an underage girl. Sources? Of course I don't have any. I just "heard" it. See how silly that is?

If you have some credible evidence of your claim, please provide it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sam sarrha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. it is in the down stairs computer, it gave all his history,training and numerous commendations, i
got out of the hospital from an amputation reattachment of my hand, due to not being able to do stairs on meds and loss of blood i cant provide it now.

i wouldn't be surprised they would try to discredit him like that, it was posted here

sorry
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 Thu Apr 25th 2024, 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles 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