Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

New 9/11 Timeline update, with new Able Danger page

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 » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
paulthompson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-17-05 04:31 AM
Original message
New 9/11 Timeline update, with new Able Danger page
Hi,
Time for another 9/11 timeline update. There are about 80 new entries, with about half of them on Able Danger. Check out all the new entries:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?events=on&dosearch=Updates&project=911_project&periodlastchanged=October+2005

And here's just the Able Danger related ones:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=ableDanger
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
pauldp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-18-05 02:11 AM
Response to Original message
1. Thanks Paul!
What I find amazing, although not surprising, is the CIA's refusal to cooperate with Able Danger. "We don't want you to steal our thunder." Now there's a loaded statement.

Great research as always.
Thank You, Thank You.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StrafingMoose Donating Member (742 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-18-05 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Yup, the eternal "we will catch a bigger fish later" statement...
Edited on Tue Oct-18-05 10:27 AM by StrafingMoose
and doesn't seem to be working at all after all! And there's something I haven't been answered about Able Danger. Is the military actually allowed to run these intel program on US soil?

I mean, most are focusing on why didn't DIA pass on the intel to FBI -- what about the validity of AD in the first place? They tracked Atta ... or brought Atta in? Are we possibly talking about 'entrapment' here ?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StrafingMoose Donating Member (742 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-18-05 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
3. Thanks Paul

Top notch work as usual! :P

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reprehensor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-18-05 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
4. Good job, Paul.
I'll send ya some cash next fundraiser, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-18-05 04:10 PM
Response to Original message
5. Paul, you da Bomb! Thank you for your courage!
Edited on Tue Oct-18-05 04:22 PM by petgoat
Your 27 minute presentation at the International Citizen's Inquiry into 9-11 in 3/04 is classic.

Quicktime:

http://www.911busters.com/video/IQ1_16_PAUL_THOMPSON_PAKISTAN_26.48_.html

Windows Media:

http://www.911busters.com/video/IQ1_16_%20PAUL_THOMPSON_PAKISTAN_26.48_.asx

Not to mention your 9/11 database:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulthompson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 01:54 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. thanks for all the thanks, everyone
by the way, petgoat, I like your name. I wonder what that's a reference to? ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-18-05 11:05 PM
Response to Original message
6. the links don't work for me. Have you been attacked?
or is it my computer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulthompson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 01:53 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Just checked the links
and they worked for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pauldp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Last night for an hour or two they didn't work for me either.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-05 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. I've tried 3 different times and they never work for me
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reprehensor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-05 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
10. Definitely some access issues...
Bandwidth? Can't load the domain at all at times. I've just noticed this problem today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-05 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
11. Weldon's floor speech on ABLE DANGER
ABLE DANGER FAILURE -- (House of Representatives - October 19, 2005)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



GPO's PDF
---
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Reichert). Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) is recognized for 60 minutes.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk to our colleagues and through our colleagues to the American people about an issue that troubles me greatly.

I have been in this institution 19 years, and during those 19 years I have been on the Committee on Armed Services. Currently, I am the vice chairman of that committee and chairman of the subcommittee that oversees the purchase of our weapons systems. In the past I have chaired the research subcommittee. I have chaired the readiness subcommittee, and I have spent every available hour of my time working to make sure that our military troops were properly protected and have the proper equipment and training.

I am a strong supporter of our military. Whether it was in the last 2 years of the Reagan administration, the four years of the Bush administration, the 8 years of the Clinton administration, or the current administration of President George W. Bush, I have been a strong supporter of our military. I am a strong supporter of President Bush. I campaigned for him. I am a strong supporter of Secretary Rumsfeld. I say all of that, Mr. Speaker, because tonight I rise to express my absolute outrage and disgust with what is happening in our defense intelligence agencies.

Mr. Speaker, back in 1999 when I was Chair of the defense research subcommittee, the Army was doing cutting-edge work on a new type of technology to allow us to understand and predict emerging transnational terrorist threats. That technology was being done at several locations, but was being led by our Special Forces Command. The work that they were doing was unprecedented. And because of what I saw there, I supported the development of a national capability of a collaborative center that the CIA would just not accept.

In fact, in November 4 of 1999, 2 years before 9/11, in a meeting in my office with the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Deputy Director of the CIA, Deputy Director of the FBI, we presented a nine-page proposal to create a national collaborative center. When we finished the brief, the CIA said we did not need that capability, and so before 9/11 we did not have it.

When President Bush came in after a year of research, he announced the formation of the Terrorism Threat Integration Center, exactly what I had proposed in 1999. Today it is known as the NCTC, the National Counterterrorism Center. But, Mr. Speaker, what troubles me is not the fact that we did not take those steps.

What troubles me is that I now have learned in the last 4 months that one of the tasks that was being done in 1999 and 2000 was a top-secret program organized at the request of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, carried out by the general in charge of our Special Forces Command, a very elite unit focusing on information regarding al Qaeda. It was a military language effort to allow us to identify the key cells of al Qaeda around the world and to give the military the capability to plan actions against those cells so they could not attack us as they did in 1993 at the Trade Center, at the Khobar Towers, the U.S.S. Cole attack, and the African embassy bombings.

What I did not know, Mr. Speaker, up until June of this year, was that that secret program called Able Danger actually identified the Brooklyn cell of al Qaeda in January and February of 2000, over 1 year before 9/11 every happened. In addition, I learned that not only did we identify the Brooklyn cell of al Qaeda, but we identified Mohamed Atta as one of the members of that Brooklyn cell along with three other terrorists who were the leadership of the 9/11 attack.

I have also learned, Mr. Speaker, that in September of 2000, again, over 1 year before 9/11, that Able Danger team attempted on three separate occasions to provide information to the FBI about the Brooklyn cell of al Qaeda, and on three separate occasions they were denied by lawyers in the previous administration to transfer that information.

Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday on ``Meet the Press,'' Louis Freeh, FBI Director at the time, was interviewed by Tim Russert. The first question to Louis Freeh was in regard to the FBI's ability to ferret out the terrorists. Louis Freeh's response, which can be obtained by anyone in this country as a part of the official record, was, Well, Tim, we are now finding out that a top-secret program of the military called Able Danger actually identified the Brooklyn cell of al Qaeda and Mohammed Atta over a year before 9/11.

And what Louis Freeh said, Mr. Speaker, is that that kind of actionable data could have allowed us to prevent the hijackings that occurred on September 11.

So now we know, Mr. Speaker, that military intelligence officers working in a program authorized by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the general in charge of Special Forces Command, identified Mohammed Atta and three terrorists a year before 9/11, tried to transfer that information to the FBI were denied; and the FBI Director has now said publicly if he would have had that information, the FBI could have used it to perhaps prevent the hijackings that struck the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the plane that landed in Pennsylvania and perhaps saved 3,000 lives and changed the course of world history.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight because we have been trying to get the story out about Able Danger and what really happened. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I have to rise tonight to tell you that as bad as this story is, and as bad as it is that the data was not transferred to the FBI, and as bad as it is that the 9/11 Commission totally ignored this entire story and referred to it as historically insignificant even though it was authorized by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, even though Louis Freeh has now said it could have provided information to prevent the attack against us, the 9/11 Commission ignored it. Not because the commissioners ignored it, but because someone at the staff level on the

9/11 Commission staff decided for whatever reason that they did not want to pursue the Abel Danger story.

Mr. Speaker, in August and September I met with the military officials involved with Abel Danger and one by one they told their story, until, Mr. Speaker, leaders in the Defense Intelligence Agency, including the deputy director, decided they do not want the story told. I think because they perhaps are fearful of being embarrassed and humiliated.

So what direction had they taken, Mr. Speaker?

They have gagged the military officers. They have prevented them from talking to any Member of Congress. They have prevented them from talking to the media. And the Defense Intelligence Agency has began a process to destroy the career and the life of Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer.

Now, it might be easy for us to ignore this, Mr. Speaker. We all have busy careers and worry about reelections every 2 years and worry about our own families and our jobs. But I cannot do that in this case and neither can this body, and neither can the other body. You see, Lieutenant Colonel Shaffer took an oath to defend our Constitution. He took the words ``duty, honor, country'' seriously and devoted 23 years of his life in four deployed intelligence operations of our military to protect America.

During the time he served our country, he has received the Bronze Star, an award that does not come easily, for showing acts of courage, leadership, and bravery in the course of his activities.




He has received public commendations from previous directors of the Defense Intelligence Agency, including General Patrick Hughes, including generals at Special Forces Command, and including Admiral Wilson of the Defense Intelligence Agency. He has received dozens of letters and commendations for his work. The laudatory comments I reviewed in his files are unbelievable.

But, you see, Mr. Speaker, there is a problem. The Deputy Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency was in a meeting with Lieutenant Colonel Shaffer almost a year before 9/11, and Lieutenant Colonel Shaffer showed him a disk in his office with information about al Qaeda and Mohammed Atta, and the Deputy Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency stopped the briefing and said, you cannot show me that. I do not want to see it. It might contain information I cannot look at.

Now, Tony Shaffer was not in the room alone, Mr. Speaker. There were other people, and we know their names. So we have witnesses. Now, the Deputy Director has denied that meeting and denied he was there and denied this particular story, but the fact is he knows that we are going to pursue it.

So what has happened to Lieutenant Colonel Shaffer, Mr. Speaker? The Defense Intelligence Agency has lifted his security clearance. One day before he was to testify before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, in uniform, they permanently removed his security clearance. And now our Defense Intelligence Agency has told Colonel Shaffer's lawyer that they plan to seek a permanent removal of his pay and his health care benefits for him and his two children. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because Lieutenant Colonel Shaffer, like Commander Scott Philpot of the Navy, like J. D. Smith, and like a host of other Able Danger employees, has told the truth.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I sat here in the 1990s and I sat here during the 9/11 investigation and watched a ridiculous situation develop with Sandy Berger, the National Security Adviser under President Clinton. He walked into the National Archives before he was to testify before the 9/11 Commission looking through documents. He took documents out of the archives and stuffed them in his socks and pants so that no one would see them as he left the National Archives. Now, that is a felony, tampering with Federal documents and removing classified information regarding our security and information that the 9/11 commission needed to see.

Sandy Berger initially lied about it. He said he did not do it. Then he admitted it, and he was given a punishment. And, oh, by the way, his security clearance was temporarily lifted, but he will get it back again, for lying, for stealing, and for committing an act of outrage against our country's security. Lieutenant Colonel Shaffer, a Bronze Star 23-year military veteran, simply told the truth and now his life is being ruined.

His career is ended. He is no longer in military intelligence. They have taken his security clearance, and they are about to destroy him as a person. They are about to deny him the basic health care and the salary that he has earned, and they are doing it in this way. This is outrageous. It is evil. They do not want to fire Tony because they also do not want him to talk to the media. So by suspending him and removing his pay and his health care, they hurt him bad, but he cannot talk because he is under suspension and his lawyer has advised him that to talk to the media, to talk to Members of Congress, even when he is not being paid, would cause him further problems and totally prevent him from ever having this gross problem reversed. Mr. Speaker, this is outrageous. Mr. Speaker, this is not America.

Over my 19 years in Congress, I have led 40 delegations to the former Soviet Union. I have sat in the face of the Soviet Communists and confronted them on full transparency. I sat at the table with President Lukashenko of Belarus, who has been called by our Secretary of State the last dictator in Europe. I took both delegations to North Korea, Mr. Speaker, and sat across the table from Kim Gye Gwan and I told him we abhor the way they treat their people, the way they lie about what is happening, and the way they distort information.

Mr. Speaker, I took three delegations to Libya to meet with Qadhafi, and I told him that we are absolutely outraged at what Libya did in helping complete the Lockerbie bombing and the bombing of the Berlin nightclub.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I never thought I would have to take the floor of this Chamber and make the same statements about the Defense Intelligence Agency. As a supporter of the President, as a supporter of the military, Mr. Speaker, if we allow this to go forward, then we send the signal to every man and woman wearing a uniform that if you tell the truth, you will be destroyed if a career bureaucrat above you does not like what you are saying. If you tell the truth, we will take your health care benefits away from your kids. If you tell

the truth, we will ruin you.

Mr. Speaker, this is not America. Mr. Speaker, this is not what I have been told by Secretary Rumsfeld that we are doing with our troops in protecting them, in giving them the best equipment and the best training. This is not what I spend hours in committee hearings on. This sends the wrong signal to America's troops. It tells them, do not be honest. Do not respect the fact that you have to be truthful. If there is somebody that the truth offends, then you better be silent.

Mr. Speaker, I have today asked for an independent investigation of the Defense Intelligence Agency and their efforts at destroying Tony Shaffer's life. This is outrageous, Mr. Speaker. They trumped up charges against him. They said while he was overseas in Afghanistan, forward deployed, that he forwarded cell phone calls from his official phone to his personal phone; and when they checked that out, it ran up a cost to the taxpayers of about $60. The second verbal charge they gave him was that he went to a course at the Army War College and he got reimbursed for his travel, his mileage and tolls, 100-some dollars. And they said he received a commendation for which he was not entitled, even though it was signed by his commanding officer and the acting Secretary of the Army.

But they went beyond that, Mr. Speaker. They went beyond that with this man. They said he had $2,000 of debt, personal debt. Well, I would like to have every Pentagon employee tomorrow, I would like to have the senior leadership show us what debt they have in the Defense Intelligence Agency so we can make that public.

They even went to this length, Mr. Speaker: the Defense Intelligence Agency wrote in an official document that Lieutenant Colonel Shaffer stole public property. A serious charge. Well, when you check what that public property was, it was an assortment of pens, government pens. But what they did not say in the Defense Intelligence report was that he took those pens when he was 15 years of age and was with his father when he was on assignment at one of our embassy outposts. He took the pens to give to other students at the school when he was 15 years of age. And by the way, Mr. Speaker, it was Tony Shaffer himself who admitted to that thievery when he applied for his security clearance. So the Defense Intelligence Agency knew that during his entire career of 23 years, but they put that in the document against him.

This is a scandal, Mr. Speaker. It is an outrage. It is a travesty. Everyone that worked with Tony Shaffer, the Navy officers, the private citizens have all said the same thing. This is a scandal to get Tony Shaffer because he has told the truth.

Now, this Defense Intelligence Agency and this Deputy Director had the audacity to have their legal counsel send Tony Shaffer's lawyer a letter on September 23. I cannot put that letter in the RECORD because it is privileged information, but it will eventually come out. But in that letter, in the second to last paragraph, the legal counsel for the Defense Intelligence Agency says to Mr. Shaffer's lawyer, he cannot receive any more classified information from the Defense Intelligence Agency because I checked and his security clearances have all been removed. Therefore, he is not allowed to look at anything that is secret or confidential.

Now, that is a letter sent by the general counsel of the DIA on September 23 of this year. Two weeks later, Mr. Speaker, to show the stupidity of the Defense Intelligence Agency, they send seven packages to Mr. Shaffer's lawyer

GPO's PDF
of his personal belongings, which the Deputy Director of the DIA told my staff 3 months ago did not exist any more. And in those seven boxes, Mr. Speaker, were five classified memos. The Defense Intelligence Agency sent five classified memos to Lieutenant Colonel Shaffer, which they told him on September 23 he was not allowed to have access to.
Mr. Speaker, that is a felony; and I have asked the Inspector General and the legal officials to investigate and prosecute the Defense Intelligence officials who sent five classified documents through the mail or by hand delivery to Tony Shaffer.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the Defense Intelligence Agency, in its absolute total stupidity, included in those boxes $500 worth of Federal property, including a multi-hundred dollar GPS system owned by the Federal Government, which they sent to Tony Shaffer, I guess to keep. They also sent, Mr. Speaker, 25 pens, brand new, and marked on them is ``Property of the U.S. Government.'' The Defense Intelligence Agency, in its absolute utter stupidity, sent Tony Shaffer Federal property which they accused him of taking when he was 15 years of age.

Mr. Speaker, there is something desperately wrong here. There is a bureaucracy in the Defense Intelligence Agency that is out of control. They want to destroy the reputation of a 23-year military officer, Bronze Star recipient, hero of our country, with two kids because people in defense intelligence are embarrassed at what is going to come out.

And what is going to come out, Mr. Speaker? Well, we are going to find out, Mr. Speaker, that that unit, Able Danger , not only identified Mohammed Atta before 9/11, not only did they try to pass that information to the FBI, not only was that large data destroyed in the summer of 2000, but now, Mr. Speaker, I can add a new dimension to this whole story. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I met with another Able Danger official. I was not aware of this official's knowledge because he does not live within the Beltway.

This official, Mr. Speaker, has impeccable credentials. I cannot reveal his name today. I will to any Member of this body, any of our colleagues that want to come to me, I will tell you privately who this official is, and you will agree with me when I tell you his name that he has impeccable credentials. This official yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in a meeting in my office, told me that he has never been talked to by the Pentagon. He has never been talked to by the Defense Intelligence Agency in their supposed investigation. He has never been talked to by the 9/11 Commission staff in their investigation; yet this official had a leadership position in Able Danger .

This official told me that there is a separate cache of information collected from over 20 Federal agencies in 1999 and 2000 on Able Danger that still may exist. Now, the Pentagon has told us all this material was destroyed, and now I have a senior official telling me there is a second pot of information that may well still exist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meppie-meppie not Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. his characterization of the Sandy Berger incident is total hog wash and
partisan beyond belief, otherwise the rest is simply the standard MO of this administration and it's agencies. Why isn't he outraged by the destruction of careers and gag orders placed on any of the other whisle-blowers that have been involved in 911?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulthompson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-05 04:27 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. Yes...
Weldon is extremely eager to tie this to the usual right wing targets like Sandy Berger, Jamie Gorelick, and Clenis (Clinton's penis). But I also think that he's largely sincere. Here's something I wrote in another post:

The reason the right wing gets their panties in a bunch over this is because they perceive it as a Clinton failure. But it wasn't. Clinton and his top people never knew about it, and it was shut down at the start of the Bush administration (not to mention the cover up lasting until now). It's a failure that transcends parties.

As for Curt Weldon, many people think he's a bit wacko, and I understand on many issues he is extreme. But I think he's sincere on this one. He was deeply involved in data mining efforts before 9/11, knew a lot of the players involved before 9/11, and put forth some sensible information sharing and data mining proposals before 9/11. So he's very emotionally invested in this. He seems willing to follow the evidence wherever it may go, regardless of party. Note for instance this comment from him which I have sourced in the above link:

In mid-September 2005, Weldon will say, “I knew that the Clinton administration clearly knew about this. Now I know of at least two briefings in the Bush administration.” He calls these two briefings “very troubling.” He wants to know what became of the information presented in these briefings, suggesting it shouldn't have been destroyed as part of the other Able Danger data purges.

---

I would only add to that: the reason he cares about this and not other whistleblower issues again has to do with his direct personal involvement in this story long before 9/11. Read my Able Danger timeline to see more on how he was involved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-05 09:22 PM
Response to Original message
13. "I have a question for you."
Edited on Thu Oct-20-05 09:23 PM by seemslikeadream
Posted by VLC98
I'm trying to follow this story and you seem to be the expert on it. I would like to know why Jamie Gorelick was on the 9/11 commission if it was possible that her past actions might have played a part in the intelligence failure. Was this "wall" not an issue when they chose her?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5116940
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-05 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. None of the people on the Commission took the task seriously
The members were chosen to avoid doing a serious study, same for staff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulthompson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-05 04:30 AM
Response to Reply #13
17. If you want me to answer that...
I'd say that ALL the 9/11 Commissioners had horrible conflicts of interest. Of course Bush was going to put in his cronies but what's surprising (or not, depending on your cynicism) is just how bad the 5 Democrat choices were. Democratic choice Gorelick is probably the one with the biggest conflicts out of all of them. She was an important official in the Clinton administration and involved in decisions that the 9/11 Commission later investigated.

Shame on Tom Daschle, who apparently was the main guy to pick the 5 Democrat Commissioners.

(As an aside, 9/11 Commission executive director Philip Zelikow had the worst conflicts of interest of all, but he technically wasn't one of the ten commissioners)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VLC98 Donating Member (398 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-05 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. Please check your inbox. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
medienanalyse Donating Member (727 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-05 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
19. Where is the point, the conclusion, the focus, the scandal ?
In all the answers, in all the discussions, in Pauls Able Danger story I am missing it. Is it my problem or is it real ?

Can anybody tel us in two or three sentences: what is the main point.
Please.

BTW: I would like to do it myself - but first I want to see if I am alone or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jon Gold Donating Member (103 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
20. Thanks Paul
For everything that you do.
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 Sat May 04th 2024, 01:01 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 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