Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why do Democrats like Murtha apologize for War in Iraq?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Filius Nullius Donating Member (177 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-02-06 08:56 PM
Original message
Why do Democrats like Murtha apologize for War in Iraq?
Why do Kerry, Murtha and other Senate and House Democrats routinely apologize for voting "for" the war in Iraq? I heard Murtha do it again on CNN earlier this evening. I thought that they actually voted to give President Bush authority to decide whether WMD existed in Iraq and whether he should therefore commit U.S. forces to a war in Iraq. Do they still think the U.S. public is too stupid to understand the difference between voting for war and voting to allow the President to decide? If they want to apologize for something, apologize for delegating authority to an incompetent like Bush to make the decision, not for actually deciding to go to war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
pocoloco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-02-06 08:59 PM
Response to Original message
1. They knew what they were voting for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Filius Nullius Donating Member (177 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-02-06 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. Yes. They were voting for Bush to investigate and decide if war was justified
True. They knew they were voting for the President to determine and inform the Speaker of the House and President pro tem of the Senate as soon as feasible but no later than 48 hrs. after going to war that diplomatic or other peaceful means of resolving the situation had been exhausted. See message 7 below for the exact text.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-02-06 09:00 PM
Response to Original message
2. They take responsibility for what happened, even if they did not intend it to happen.
Also, they are told to keep it simple, because the media and people do not understand nuances.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Filius Nullius Donating Member (177 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-02-06 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. You nailed it!
You hit the nail on the head! What I originally heard Kerry say is that he did not trust the public to understand the nuances. That is supposedly what his thought pattern was when he famously screwed up by saying, " I voted against the war in Iraq before I voted for it." I am tired of being treated like an ignoramus. I am sorry, but this is Bush's war, not the Democrats. Most of them were browbeaten and dragged into this.

There is a principle of law called vicarious liability. For example, if you employ someone who is incompetent to do a job (such as, for example, a driver who has a bad driving record) without sufficient vetting that person and investigating his record, and he screws up and causes harm to someone, you are indirectly liable for your negligent entrustment, but not as a direct perpetrator.

I maintain that there is a difference between voting for a declaration of war and delegating authority to the President to investigate and make a considered decision. Judges and juries take mitigating factors into account all the time in deciding guilt and innocence and meeting out punishment. This is obviously an extreme example, but the guy that pulls the trigger gets the chair or life, while the other perps get lesser sentences, especially if they are able to convince the jury that they thought it was just going to be a robbery and not an execution-style slaying.

The voters are the jury here, and they would easily be able to distinguish between Bush's active promotion and undertaking of the war and Democrats' indirect and reluctant delegation of authority.

I mean, come on. Senators and Representatives are politicians, not saints. Are you all telling me they never put a favorable slant on an issue?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadMaddie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-02-06 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
3. They are apologizing because they understand the truth of the
casualties......

They are apologizing because many of them failed to investigate the claims they failed us and our soldiers...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Filius Nullius Donating Member (177 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-02-06 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. Bush, as President, had all of the available intelligence, and it did not support going to war
I understand why you feel they let us all down. However, Congress legislates, the Chief Executive "executes" the laws. This law specifically ordered the President to investigate, make sure the war was justified and report back to Congress as soon as feasible, but no later than 48 hrs. after the start of the commencement of hostilities. The final decision was his, and that was how he wanted it. He asked for it, he got it, he screwed up and the buck really should stop with him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadMaddie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-03-06 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #11
23. You are right....but I think they voted approval of the law
even if it went against their gut feeling....and theres the guilt...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-02-06 09:03 PM
Response to Original message
4. It's what real humans do when they take responsibility, even when it's
not really their responsibility to do so.

It's accepting a burden based on perception. The WH and their mediawhores made sure that perception prevailed in the public mind.

The WH knew all along that resolution didn't even give them war powers, so they wrote a signing statement claiming they already had the power.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Filius Nullius Donating Member (177 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-02-06 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #4
13. Republicans attack. Democrats wring their hands and let them.
I agree that the Democrats could have done more. However, it was the Administration that lead the charge, not the Dems. Our culpability is not nearly as great as theirs. Allowing the Repugs to tar us with their own brush is so typical of Democrats. It is one reason the party is seen as so ineffectual. We continually roll over and ask them to kick us again.... "Please, sir, may I have another blow to the head?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Erika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-02-06 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. Murtha went after the Chickenhawks like hell.
Where have you been? A Marine doesn't roll over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Filius Nullius Donating Member (177 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-03-06 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. You are right. Murtha has fought them tooth and nail.
However, Democrats seem to have this mind set of self-doubt. It is far too late to do anything about John Kerry saying, "I voted against the war before I voted for it." Kerry cannot pretend that his very, very unfortunate "botched joke" from earlier this week never happened. It is also too late for Jack Murtha to undo tonight's apology for voting for the war. Of course, in the grand scheme of things, Murtha's "mea culpa" is not that big of a deal. However, Democrats need to think twice before unnecessarily manifesting self-doubts and offering gratuitous apologies. All it does is give the Republicans ammunition to use against us. In the immortal words of tank commander Oddball in Kelly's Heroes, "Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-03-06 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #20
25. The problem is that, each time somebody tries to fight back, they are slammed by their own.
Edited on Fri Nov-03-06 09:25 AM by Mass
See Dean during the election. See Murtha and Feingold. See Kerry this week (not the joke, which was lame, but when he tried to fight back by saying Bush was the one who owned an apology).

Ford saying that Bush and Cheney are good men who want to do good for their country is fine. Saying that they only care about a few is being slammed as far-left or as shrill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Filius Nullius Donating Member (177 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-02-06 09:12 PM
Response to Original message
5. They knew
I understand what you are saying, but Bush asked Congress to trust him, and the legislators literally voted to trust him and his Administration to decide whether war was justified. He let them and the country down, pure and simple. The buck is supposed to stop with the President on all things military. That is true even if something happens for which he is not directly responsible. If he asks for the buck to stop with him, that is all the more reason to hold him responsible. Bush, the CIA and the military had access to much more information than the Democrats did, particularly rank and file Dems. At any rate, if I were a Democratic politician, I would put primary responsibility where it belongs, which is with the guy who asked for authorization to make the decision. Then I would apologize for passing off the decision to a guy who has as little foreign policy acumen and strategic military experience as Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-02-06 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
6. That ship sailed in 2003
Everybody left of center has twisted that vote and it's just too late to put it back in the bottle. Some, like Lieberman, still insist they WERE voting for war. Just too much politics to fight, even though Bush said at the time that it wasn't a vote for war. It was a vote to keep the peace, remember?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Filius Nullius Donating Member (177 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-02-06 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. That ship sailed....
Bush and most Republicans will revisit an issue and revise history any time it suits their purpose. What is wrong with quoting the very Joint Resolution delegating power to him to decide whether "further diplomatic or other peaceful means" could have resolved the crisis:

"SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

"(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to


"(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

"(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

"In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

"(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

"(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. "

What is wrong with telling it how it really was? Actually, it is the Republicans who have twisted the facts and tried to hoist the Democrats with the G.O.P.'s own petard.

By the way, does anyone know whether Bush ever got back to Dennis Hastert or Ted Stevens before the war or within 48 hours after launching it with the required statement of justification? I believe it should have been in writing, just as are all of the signing statements explaining why he may decide not to enforce federal statutes as written.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-02-06 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. I agree with you
But those on the left have called it a vote for war since the vote, and have based their last 3 years on being anti-war and against those that 'voted for the war'. People like Lieberman and Hillary and Biden have stood by their 'vote for the war'. As the war went bad, those who 'voted against the war' have wanted to use that for political advantage. It's a mess.

And yes, Bush did send the determination and state that Iraq was a grave danger. However, he also named the operation "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and I still say nobody authorized him to liberate Iraqi's or create a democracy in Iraq. Once the WMD were not found, Bush had no legitimate basis for our troops to be there. Also, John Dean wrote extensively about the "diplomatic or other peaceful means" and that Bush hadn't met that standard and therefore had not lived up to the standard of the IWR, especially if he cherry-picked intelligence to launch the war.

So yeah, I understand what you're saying. It's just that this has been hashed over for over 3 years and Democrats can't even get in the same book, let alone on the same page. It's a damn shame. It pisses me off no end that Bush told us he only wanted a united front at the UN when he had been planning the war since November 2001, and then turned that very same "vote for peace" into a "vote for war", and nobody has batted an eye over it. Well, except John Kerry. He did try to make the point in 2004, but the media was brain dead on it, as usual.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Filius Nullius Donating Member (177 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-02-06 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. Great points!
Thanks for the analysis. You make many excellent points. However, you will recall that I started this thread by questioning why Murtha was apologizing again for "voting" to go to war. He was not apologizing for not stopping the war after it had started. I am not sure he has an accurate understanding of his own vote.

Be that as it may, I believe that Democrats should be less defensive and make far more decisive arguments against continuing to "stay the course" with a Republican Congress. They should be framing the debate as follows:

"O.K. The Administration wanted this war; we did not. We screwed up by permitting the President to make this decision. However, he assured us that he had conclusive proof of WMD and a solid plan for prosecuting the war. He said he knew what he was doing, and we trusted him because he is the President. After the commencement of hostilities, we had no choice but to go along because the troops needed our support.

"It is now very clear that the Administration got us into this war without having any proof of WMD or clear idea of how to create a secure and stable Iraq. It has made our nation less secure, not more. It is now time for the country to vote all of those who were actually in favor of starting this ill-conceived, half-hearted fiasco out of office. This will make it possible for the country to make a fresh start in deciding how to handle this debacle."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Erika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-02-06 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Jack Murtha as a Marine did a great job in saying
Edited on Thu Nov-02-06 11:44 PM by Erika
enough is enough. He and his wife visit Walter Knox at least once a week. He is a great man of courage and empathy.

Most are sickened that Chickenhawks would try to belittle him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Filius Nullius Donating Member (177 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-03-06 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. Murtha is a very moral and righteous person
I hope you do not believe that I am trying to belittle Jack Murtha. I thought he was very courageous when he was essentially the first member of Congress to stand up and call for a new course of action in Iraq. He is a true American hero. I know he is trying to do the right thing in apologizing for his vote. However, I do feel that this proclivity of Democrats to confess their innermost personal doubts plays into the Republicans' hands in the vast majority of cases.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-03-06 01:13 AM
Response to Reply #14
21. It's been successfully 'framed'
I think that the ones who 'voted for the war' think it's too difficult to try to reframe, especially considering Dems from Byrd to Kennedy to Feingold proudly say they didn't 'vote for the war'. When about 80% of Congress are calling it a 'vote for war', I don't see how a small handful can go against that. Kerry repeatedly tried to explain the vote in 2004 and that was part of what was labeled as wishy-washy and flip flopper. As you've possibly seen with the so-called botched joke, once any part of the Dem Party sides with the Republicans - game over. I think letting Bush call that a vote for war was one of the biggest mistakes made in the last 3 years, but I also don't think it can be undone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Filius Nullius Donating Member (177 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-03-06 01:50 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. "I was framed!"
Edited on Fri Nov-03-06 01:54 AM by Filius Nullius
I understand what you are saying, but why don't the guys who voted for the Joint Resolution say, "I feel that my vote has been mischaracterized. I didn't vote against the war, but I didn't vote for it either. I voted to let the President decide whether war was justified in the belief that he is an honorable man with more information than was available to members of Congress and that he would exercise his authority fairly and objectively."

The average citizen lets the President decide a wide variety of issues for him every day. The typical refrain is, "Well, he's the President, isn't he?" No individual member of Congress has the power to make the President divulge everything he knows about an issue. There has to be a certain amount of trust in a situation in which the President asserts that an alleged enemy of the U.S. has weapons of mass destruction, especially when the party with power to demand strict proof fails to do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmcmeans Donating Member (2 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-02-06 10:51 PM
Response to Original message
12. President Bush is losing the war on terror
 		          President Bush is losing the War on Terror 

President Bush wants to make the election about the War or
Terror. But what is the President’s record in fighting against
real card carrying terrorists? The Bush administration has had
three major opportunities to demonstrate their competence
against dangerous terrorists and has failed each time. 

The first failure happened at Tora Bora. The battle of  Tora
Bora may well prove to be one of the most costly “victories”
in US military history. 

Despite having thousands of US Marines relatively close at
hand, the Bush administration chose to use a handful of 
special forces and Afghan militias to attack the terrorist
stronghold. Incredibly, the leadership in the Pentagon failed
to realize that the Afghan militias would conduct their part
of the battle in their traditional manner which is based on
the ancient teachings of the Chinese military strategist, Sun
Tsu. One of Sun Tsu’s  most basic principles is to “win the
battle without fighting,” that is, to maneuver the enemy out
of your territory with few if any losses. This was important
because in ancient China, just as in present day Afghanistan,
every tribe and province is surrounded by deadly enemies.
Winning a costly victory over your enemy today means defeat at
the hands of another enemy tomorrow.  
 
In each stage of the war, our Afghan militia allies were
content to merely maneuver the Taliban and foreign fighters
out of their respective tribal territories. The same scenario
played out at the battle of  Tora Bora. Osama and the majority
of  his fighters were not confronted but allowed to slip into
Pakistan.  Al Qaida was inconvenienced and disrupted but was
not destroyed. The enemy merely traded one rocky mountainside
in Afghanistan for another rocky mountainside in Pakistan less
than one hundred miles away. 

The civilian leadership in the Pentagon violated one of  the
most basic principles of  war in Afghanistan.  The politicians
in the Pentagon were obsessed with capturing territory, i.e.,
the capital of  Kabul, the fortress of  Tora Bora, rather than
the critically important goal of concentrating our forces to
kill or capture the enemy.

The United States had a golden opportunity to destroy al Qaida
in one stroke, but failed due to ignorance, incompetence, and
neglect. 

According to Bob Woodward’s book, Point of Attack, after 9/11
Donald Rumsfeld was “driven to the brink” by the delay in
getting boots on the ground in Afghanistan. But by insisting
on a rapid response, President Bush and Rumsfeld sowed the
seeds for eventual failure. Then, while the officers at
General Tommy Franks Central Command were still busy directing
the Afghan war,  Donald Rumsfeld ordered them to begin
planning for the invasion of  Iraq. Both President Bush and
Rumsfeld were obsessed with Iraq, and this obsession  diverted
resources and attention away from the battle in Afghanistan
before the war was won. Consequently, the war in Afghanistan
is still not won, and may well never be won. 

While the war in Iraq is now the main front in the War on
Terror according to President Bush, before the war, Iraq was
not a safe haven for terrorists with one exception, Sargat.  

President Bush’s second major failure in the War on Terror was
at the Iraqi village of  Sargat which is located close to the
Iranian border. Sargat was occupied by Ansar al-Islam, a
mostly Kurdish terrorist group led by a Jordanian with ties to
al-Qaida. The Bush administration rarely mentioned Sargat when
discussing the War on Terror because Ansar al-Islam  existed
for all practical purposes under U.S. protection. Sargat was
located north of the northern Green Line, which Saddam was
prohibited to cross, and thus Ansar al-Islam was safe from
attack by Saddam’s army. But while the U.S. had plenty of
bombs to drop on Saddam in the years between Gulf War 1 and
the Iraq War, seemingly there were no bombs available to drop
on the base of  a known terror group who had killed Kurdish
secularists and which was allegedly running poison
laboratories. 

The Bush administration finally did decide to deal with Sargat
as part of the invasion of  Iraq.  But, while there were
plenty of  U.S. troops available to protect the Iraqi Oil
Ministry, no regular US troops were available to attack
Sargat. According to Point of  Attack, a handful of  Special
Forces in the Kurdish region who had been running the
“Rockstars” spy network were assigned the job. Tragically, the
mistakes made at Tora Bora were repeated at Sargat. The boots
on the ground were provided by the local Kurdish militias, and
as could have been predicted, they repeated the performance of
their cousins in Afghanistan. The Kurds were content to
maneuver the terrorists out of their territory and across the
border into Iran. As the last of the terrorists were loading
their SUVs to leave, the American Special Forces called for an
airstrike, but sadly, no planes were available to attack these
deadly terrorists. The vast majority of the terrorists lived 
to fight another day. 

The commander of Ansar al-Islam was named Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi, and he would soon return to Iraq and kill hundreds
of Americans and thousands of Iraqis. 

The third major failure of the Bush administration in the War
on Terror is on-going and unfolding before our eyes. While
President Bush claims to be the tough guy against the
terrorists, according to CNN correspondent Michael Ware, 
“al-Qaida at its very heart has been found, identified, yet is
not being struck…” 

According to a report released by Ware on September 12, 2006,
Al-Qaida uses the town of   Ramadi in Al Anbar province as its
headquarters. “This is were the leaders hide, move plan.” 
Also, “Al Qaida (in Iraq) is almost untouched in its area of
operations, and in the city of  Ramadi itself, al Qaida
fighters are constantly attacking U.S. troops.”

Ware also says, “So, here’s the heart of al-Qaida in Iraq, and
there’s simply not enough troops and no strategy to combat
it.” 

Also, according to Ware, “there’s an area north of the 
Euphrates River that is used by al Qaida’s top leadership that
Osama bin Laden himself points to. It’s the size of  New
Hampshire. You have only a few hundred troops there. They can
do nothing to hamper al Qaida’s leadership in that area.”

Ware also says, “…Ramadi, it’s actually the  al Qaida front
line,” and “this is where American Marines and soldiers go
face to face every day with the very organization that
attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and yet it
seems that they’re being forced to do so under-resourced and
with one arm tied behind their back.”

Ware concludes that, “In Ramadi, in western al Anbar province,
we see what can only be described as a black hole in President
Bush’s global war on Terror.” 

The Bush administration failed to confront and defeat the
terrorists at Tora Bora and Sargat, at the subsequent cost of
thousands of  lives. Now President Bush is making speeches
claiming that only he and his administration can lead the War
on Terror. 

But the Bush administration is not even fighting the al Qaida
terrorists in Iraq effectively, his own chosen battlefield.
The Bush administration has a proven record of  failure. For
the sake of the American people, the United States desperately
needs new, effective leadership in the War on Terror.  

Jim McMeans
Jmcmeans@negia.net
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Erika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-02-06 11:40 PM
Response to Original message
15. At one time W had the trust of Americans
Then he lied to us. W is proably unique in the fact that few Americans "trust" him in any way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inthebrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-02-06 11:46 PM
Response to Original message
17. Quite simple
Follow the money.

Have a look at their portfolios.

A study was released (it was mentioned on Bill Maher's show) regarding the stock performances of those in the Senate and HOR. It was quite revealing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-03-06 09:17 AM
Response to Original message
24. Everybody in the world knew it was already a done deal
Even our Congress critters knew and that is saying something. Everyone knew Bush* was going to invade Iraq. EVERYONE and yet they still voted for it so they damn well should apologize.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-03-06 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
26. Welcome to DU!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 03:27 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

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

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


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

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

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

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC