Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Robert Parry: The Secret World of Robert Gates

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 (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
reprehensor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-09-06 05:33 PM
Original message
Robert Parry: The Secret World of Robert Gates
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/110906A.shtml

The Secret World of Robert Gates
By Robert Parry
Consortium News

Thursday 09 November 2006

Robert Gates, George W. Bush's choice to replace Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary, is a trusted figure within the Bush Family's inner circle, but there are lingering questions about whether Gates is a trustworthy public official.

The 63-year-old Gates has long faced accusations of collaborating with Islamic extremists in Iran, arming Saddam Hussein's dictatorship in Iraq, and politicizing U.S. intelligence to conform with the desires of policymakers - three key areas that relate to his future job.

Gates skated past some of these controversies during his 1991 confirmation hearings to be CIA director - and the current Bush administration is seeking to slip Gates through the congressional approval process again, this time by pressing for a quick confirmation by the end of the year, before the new Democratic-controlled Senate is seated.

If Bush's timetable is met, there will be no time for a serious investigation into Gates's past...

Continued...
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/110906A.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DrDebug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-09-06 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
1. Board of Directors of SAIC and VoteHere is weird as well
Edited on Thu Nov-09-06 05:53 PM by DrDebug
http://www.whoscounting.net/TheCompanies.htm#VOTE%20HERE

SAIC was the company who approved Electronic Voting systems and in a strange coincidence both Owens and Gates moved from SAIC to VoteHere around the same time


Many SAIC officers are current or former government and military officials. Retired Army Gen. Wayne Downing*, who until last summer served as chief counter-terrorism expert on the National Security Council, is a member of SAIC’s board. Also on the board is former CIA Director Bobby Ray Inman, who served as director of the National Security Agency, deputy director of the CIA and vice director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. During the first Bush administration and while on the board of SAIC, Immen was a member of the National Foreign Intelligence Board, an advisory group that reports to the president and to the director of Central Intelligence.

Retired Adm. William Owens, a former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who sits on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s Defense Policy Board, served as SAIC’s president and CEO and until recently was its vice chairman. He now is chairman of the board of VoteHere, which seeks to provide cryptography and computer software security for the electronic election industry. Robert Gates, ex-CIA director, former SAIC board member and a veteran of the Iran-Contra scandal, also is on the board of VoteHere.

SAIC has a history of problems. In a 1995 article in Web Review, investigative journalist Stephen Pizzo notes that in 1990 the Justice Department indicted SAIC on 10 felony counts for fraud, claiming that SAIC mismanaged a Superfund toxic cleanup site. SAIC pleaded guilty. In 1993 the Justice Department again brought charges against the company for “civil fraud on an F-15 fighter contract.” In May 1995, the company was charged with lying “about security system tests it conducted for a Treasury Department currency plant in Fort Worth, Texas.”

It is not clear how SAIC became the company of choice to evaluate security standards of the voting machine industry. Under HAVA, Bush is required to establish an “oversight committee, headed by two Democrats and two Republicans, as well as a technical panel to determine standards for new voting machinery. The four commission heads were to be in place by last February, but just one has been appointed. The technical panel also remains unconstituted, even though the new machines it is supposed to vet are already being sold in large quantities,” Gumbel says.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/voting_machines_gone_wild/


*Wayne Downing is of course the man behind the the first plan for the invasion of Iraq which was ridiculed and called the "Bay of Goats" and then Downing went into retirement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-09-06 05:56 PM
Response to Original message
2. He shouldn't have been confirmed in 91 and not NOW. Dem senators AGAIN ignored Kerry
Edited on Thu Nov-09-06 05:56 PM by blm
Senator Asks Delay on CIA Nominee
American Banker, Vol. 156, Issue. 136, p 14 (07-17-1991)
By Bill Atkinson

WASHINGTON

Citing allegations of improprieties by Bank of Credit and Commerce International, Sen. John Kerry is urging postponement of confirmation hearings on Robert Gates, the President's choice to head the Central Intelligence Agency.

The Massachusetts Democrat said Mr. Gates must first answer questions from Mr. Kerry's Foreign Relations subcommittee on terrorism, narcotics, and international operations about agency links to the Luxembourg-based banking empire.

BCCI operations were seized this month by regulators in eight countries after they found evidence of massive fraud. There have been allegations that the CIA interfered with efforts to close the institution.

Mr. Kerry said Senate investigators learned that in 1988 Mr. Gates, then deputy director of the CIA, provided a memorandum on BCCI to William von Raab, former commissioner of the U.S. Customs Service. Mr. von Raab, who was conducting a money-laundering investigation, has complained that the information was "pabulum." Two months ago, Mr. Kerry attempted to obtain the same memorandum, but the CIA demurred, saying the document didn't exist.

"To date, we still do not have any answers," Mr. Kerry said. "There are significant questions which the CIA should answer before we proceed further with the Gates nomination."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enough Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-09-06 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
3. Very useful article by Parry, and the page also has Sen. Tom Harkin's statement
from the 1991 Gates confirmation hearings.

Highly recommended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reprehensor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-09-06 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
4. James Ridgeway: Rumsfeld's Replacement: The Robert Gates File
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2006/11/Gates%20Files.html

"In November 1991, years after Iran-Contra messily unraveled, the Senate deliberated on the nomination of Gates to succeed William H. Webster as the next director of Central Intelligence. Democrats, including former Senator Tom Daschle, Jay Rockefeller, and the late Paul Wellstone spoke forcefully, vowing to vote against the nominee. “Robert Gates became the Deputy Director of the CIA in April, 1986, after a meteoric rise in the Agency,” Wellstone said. “His confirmation hearings provided ample and credible evidence that, as the Deputy Director, he repeatedly skewed intelligence to promote the world view of his mentor and his boss, William Casey. Analysts specializing in the Soviet Union, Latin America, Africa, and scientific affairs, came forward--some at risk to their careers in the agency--to provide examples. The record further strongly suggests that Robert Gates supported--passively or actively--terribly misguided or illegal covert operations, including the diversion of funds to the Nicaraguan Contras obtained through the sale of arms to Iran. He also had a hand in hiding some of the details of these covert operations from Congress. Lastly, the record showed that Robert Gates crossed the line from independent intelligence-gathering into high-profile policymaking when he gave speeches advocating an unyielding line toward the Soviet Union and deployment of a star wars missile defense system.”

“My questions regarding whether or not Robert Gates participated in the politicization of intelligence culminate in my deep concern about what we can expect from Robert Gates if he is confirmed as the next Director of Central Intelligence,” Daschle said. “Again, I ask my colleagues, if Robert Gates cooked the books to advocate the ideological position of the administration while serving as Deputy Director for Intelligence and Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, is it possible that U.S. intelligence under his guidance will continue to politicize intelligence? My answer is, ‘We cannot afford to take that chance.’”

Gates, who is a member of the Iraq Study Group, which is preparing an assessment of the situation on Iraq that may well inform the nation’s policy going forward, has been hailed as the man who may bring order to a disastrously waged war. His nomination, some say, indicates a policy shift that is already in motion. Many of the nation’s problems now stem from the fact that politics and ideology have seeped into nearly every crevice of the federal bureaucracy. And Congress must now decide whether it can afford to take another chance on Robert Gates."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reprehensor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-09-06 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
5. Harkin's 1991 statement.
Edited on Thu Nov-09-06 06:09 PM by reprehensor
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1991_cr/s911107-gates.htm

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of Robert Gates to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Mr. President, at the outset of the confirmation hearings, I had serious reservations about the nominee. The confirmation hearings only raised more questions and greater doubts. Questions and doubts about Mr. Gates' past activities, managerial style, judgment, lapses in memory and analytical abilities. Questions and doubts about his role in the Iran-Contra Affair and in providing military intelligence to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war; and questions and doubts about whether he will be able to remove the ideological blinders reflected in his writings and speeches or whether Mr. Gates is so rooted in the past, that he will not be able to lead the Agency into the post-cold war era. Because of these concerns, I have concluded that Mr. Gates is not the right person for the important job of overseeing our intelligence operations in this New World.

Mr. President, Robert Gates is a career Soviet analyst and former Deputy Director of the CIA who was wrong about what CIA analyst Harold Ford described as `the central analytic target of the past few years: the probable fortunes of the USSR and the Soviet European bloc.' And I believe that the committee report points out one possible reason why the CIA failed to predict the collapse of the Soviet Union. According to testimony, Mr. Gates was busy pursuing hypotheses and making unsubstantiated arguments attempting to show Soviet expansion in the Third World, instead of looking for or paying attention to facts that pointed in the opposite direction. Why? Why, as Mentor Moynihan has pointed out, was the CIA able to tell Presidents everything about the Soviet Union except the fact that it was falling apart?

Mr. Gates was also wrong about the Soviet threat to Iran in 1985. The 1985 Special National Intelligence Estimate on Iran stressed possible Soviet inroads into Iran. Gates admits that the analysis was an anomaly. It was a clear departure from previous analyses and almost immediately proven wrong by subsequent events. Gates was involved in preparing that analysis. According to Hal Ford, whose testimony the nominee never refuted, Gates leaned heavily on the Iran Estimate, in effect, `insisting on his own views and discouraging dissent.' What was the result? The 1985 estimate was skewed and contributed to the biggest foreign policy debacle of the Reagan administration, the sale of arms to Iran.

Mr. President, Graham Fuller, the CIA's National Intelligence Officer for the Near East, suggested that the 1985 SNIE estimate was based on intuition in the absence of hard evidence. I agree there is nothing wrong with preparing worse case scenarios or using `intuition' as opposed to hard evidence in the preparation of analysis, provided it is made clear to policymakers that the finished analysis is based on intuition and not hard evidence. It is the job of the CIA to sort out fact from fiction, not convert one into the other.

Mr. President, I also have doubts and questions about Mr. Gates' role in the secret intelligence sharing operation with Iraq. Robert Gates served as assistant to the Director of the CIA in 1981 and as Deputy Director for Intelligence for 1982 to 1986. In that capacity he helped develop options in dealing with the Iran-Iraq war, which eventually involved into a secret intelligence liaison relationship with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Gates was in charge of the directorate that prepared the intelligence information that was passed on to Iraq. He testified that he was also an active participant in the operation during 1986. The secret intelligence sharing operation with Iraq was not only a highly questionable and possibly illegal operation, but also may have jeopardized American lives and our national interests. The photo reconnaissance, highly sensitive electronic eavesdropping and narrative texts provided to Saddam, may not only have helped him in Iraq's war against Iran but also in the recent gulf war. Saddam Hussein may have discovered the value of underground land lines as opposed to radio communications after he was give our intelligence information. That made it more difficult for the allied coalition to get quick and accurate intelligence during the gulf war. Further, after

the Persian Gulf war, our intelligence community was surprised at the extent of Iraq's nuclear program. One reason Saddam may have hidden his nuclear program so effectively from detection was because of his knowledge of our satellite photos. What also concerns me about that operation is that we spend millions of dollars keeping secrets from the Soviets and then we give it to Saddam who sells them to the Soviets. In short, the coddling of Saddam was a mistake of the first order.

Mr. President, I've stated a very simple case for rejecting the nomination of Robert Gates to be Director of the CIA. The fact that he was wrong on major issues which in some instances led to foreign policy debacles. I haven't addressed concerns about the allegations of his politicization of intelligence analysis, his apparently poor managerial style or still unanswered questions about his role in the Iran-Contra affair. Regarding the Iran-Contra affair, I should mention that I was quite disturbed to hear testimony that portrayed Robert Gates as someone concerned about Agency's role and not sufficiently concerned about pursuing possible illegal Government activities. In his opening statement before the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Gates said that he should have taken more seriously `the possibility of impropriety or possible wrongdoing in the Government and pursued this possibility more aggressively.' I agree.

I should also mention, Mr. President, that aside from Mr. Gates' poor judgment in not pursuing the possibility of Government wrongdoing more aggressively, I still find it incredible that the Deputy Director of CIA was not aware of that major covert operation. How could such a high ranking official not know about the CIA's efforts to support the Contras? Did he purposely avoid trying to find out what was happening? The testimony seemed to indicate he did. Gates' selective lapses in recall about the affair by a man with a photographic memory raises serious doubts.

The U.S. Congress and the American people depend on accurate and reliable intelligence information. Our expenditures on defense and other areas are often decided on the basis of that information. We cannot afford to waste billion of dollars in the future. After reviewing the record, I do not believe that the Central Intelligence Agency under the directorship of Robert Gates will provide the clear intelligence assessments necessary for Congress to make decisions to deal with the future threats confronting our nation.

Mr. President, I do not believe that Robert Gates is the right person to lead the CIA at this time. The cold war is over and it's time for some of the old warriors to rest. Now we must take a fresh new look at the world, think new thoughts and reassess the future role of the intelligence community. I urge my colleagues to vote against Robert Gates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lyonn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-10-06 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #5
15. Harkin sure had Gates pegged in 1991.
Let's hope this incompetent, bought and paid for jerk doesn't get another chance to do more damage to our intelligence agencies. The same goes for Bolton. It sounds like bush is about to make a terrible war even worse, if possible. Bush keeps reaching into that barrel of corrupt politicians, those "has beens" that were guilty of crimes then and some are guilty of crimes now. Ugh

Let the investigations begin, quick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrDebug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-09-06 06:37 PM
Response to Original message
6. Fidelity Investments is interesting as well
Ironically just like ClearStream and BCCI it is a Luxembourg based company...


Fidelity Investments was established in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg in June 1990. Since that time, it has experienced dramatic growth and success, moving from a sales office in Germany run by a single sales director to its present activities in several countries across Europe.

Fidelity Investments was established in Boston in 1946, and currently manages over US$ 815 billion worldwide for some 15 million customers. In 1969, Fidelity International Ltd. was set up in the Bermudas. In 1979 the company launched a process of international diversification with the establishment of its European operations centre in the UK, at Hildenborough in Kent; after Boston, international investment management offices were set up in London, Hong Kong and Tokyo. All the investment experts, assisted by a host of securities dealers and other support staff, are based in these four sites.

http://www.internationalreview.com/lux/078.htm


But the real treat is what Fidelity Investments owns because it's an endless list:

http://www.transnationale.org/companies/fmr_fidelity_investments.php

Some rounded excerpts (The complete list is endless):
  • ACE Ltd. 8%
  • AIG (American International Group) 5%
  • Alberto-Culver Co 14%
  • Allmerica Financial Corp 10%
  • AMEC plc. 7%
  • AMR (American Airlines Corp) 13%
  • Apex Silver Mines Ltd. 10%
  • Arrow Electronics, Inc 13%
  • Atlantic Coast Airlines Holdings, Inc 13%
  • B/E Aerospace Inc 15%
  • Barrick Gold Corp. 4%
  • Cardinal Health Inc. 12%
  • ChevronTexaco Corp. 4%
  • ChoicePoint Inc 6%
  • Clear Channel Communications 14%
  • Continental Airlines 15%
  • Corrections Corporation of America 10%
  • De la Rue plc. 10% (=Sequoia!)
  • Fluor Corp 4%
  • Halliburton Co. 8%
  • Ingram Micro Inc. 14%
  • Ladbrokes plc 14%
  • Lockheed Martin Corp. 8%
  • London Stock Exchange plc 5%
  • McDonald's 4%
  • Microsoft Corp. 4%
  • Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc 21%
  • National Semiconductor Corp 15%
  • News Corp. 6%
  • Northrop Grumman Corp. 5%
  • Northwest Airlines Corp 10%
  • Playboy Enterprises, Inc 19%
  • Standard Chartered Bank 14%
  • United Business Media (ex-United News & Media) 15%
  • Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    UTUSN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-09-06 07:04 PM
    Response to Original message
    7. K&R n/t
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    UTUSN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-09-06 08:32 PM
    Response to Reply #7
    8. Politicizing AND cherrypicking intelligence----he'll FIT RIGHT IN
    AND being the facilitator of the original October Surprise!!!1 He's a BARGAIN of a package deal!!1
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-09-06 08:34 PM
    Response to Original message
    9. I was hoping Iran would be off the table now
    :(
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    Gabi Hayes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-09-06 09:37 PM
    Response to Original message
    10. k
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    reprehensor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-09-06 10:28 PM
    Response to Original message
    11. Ray McGovern: The Cheney-Gates Cabal
    There is so much shit on this jackass it's unreal.

    http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/11/09/the_cheneygates_cabal.php


    The Cheney-Gates Cabal
    Ray McGovern
    November 09, 2006


    Those of us who had a front-row seat to watch Gates’ handling of substantive intelligence can hardly forget the manner in which he cooked it to the recipe of whomever he reported to. A protégé of William Casey, President Ronald Reagan’s CIA director, Gates learned well from his mentor. In 1995, Gates told The Washington Post ’s Walter Pincus that he watched Casey on “issue after issue sit in meetings and present intelligence framed in terms of the policy he wanted pursued.” Gates followed suit, cooking the analysis to justify policies favored by Casey and the White House. And the cooking was consequential.

    I was amused to read this morning in David Ignatius’ column in The Washington Post that Gates “was the brightest Soviet analyst in the shop, so Casey soon appointed him deputy director overseeing his fellow analysts.” He wasn’t; and Casey had something other than expertise in mind. Talk to anyone who was there at the time—except the sycophants Gates co-opted to do his bidding—and they will explain that Gates’ meteoric career had most to do with his uncanny ability to see a Russian under every rock turned over by Casey. Those of Gates’ subordinates willing to see two Russians became branch chiefs; three won you a division. I exaggerate only a little.

    To Casey, the Communists could never change; and Gorbachev was simply cleverer than his predecessors. With his earlier training in our branch, and with his doctorate in Soviet affairs, Gates clearly knew better. Yet he carried Casey’s water, and stifled all dissent. One result was that the CIA as an institution missed the implosion of the Soviet Union—no small oversight. Another result was a complete loss of confidence in CIA analysis on the part of then-Secretary of State George Shultz and others who smelled the cooking. In July 1987, in the wake of the Iran-Contra affair, he told Congress: “I had come to have grave doubts about the objectivity and reliability of some of the intelligence I was getting.”
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    starroute Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-09-06 10:35 PM
    Response to Original message
    12. Gates came up under Scowcroft and Brzezinski
    As a young man, Gates served on the National Security Council staff under first Brent Scowcroft and then Zbigniew Brzezinski. That is the experience that prepared him for his later role in the Reagan administration.

    More recently, Scowcroft and Brzezinski have been central to the clique of geostrategists who are obsessed with Central Asia. They co-chaired the Afghanistan-American Foundation back in the middle 90's. They were on the board of advisors of the U.S.-Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce (along with Kissinger, Baker, and Cheney). Brzezinski was a co-chair of the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya. Scowcroft is the head of the American Turkish Council, about which Sibel Edmonds has so much to say. Both were among the Bush Sr. people coming out against the Iraq War in August 2002.

    What concerns me is not so much Gates' Iran-Contra and Iraqgate connections in the 80's -- since he seems to be no dirtier than anybody else they might have chosen -- as the fact that he might be assigned to wind down the Iraq War only to plunge us into fresh misadventures in Central Asia, where Russia has recently been taking advantage of the US's preoccupation to extend its influence. That spells nothing but trouble.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gates
    Gates left the CIA in 1974 to serve on the National Security Council staff but returned to the CIA in late 1979.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_National_Security_Council_1974-1977
    President Ford, who assumed office in August 1974, was relatively inexperienced in foreign affairs. He therefore relied almost exclusively on Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's expertise and advice. During 1975, however, there developed strong public and congressional disapproval of the accretion of so much power over foreign policy in the hands of one man. As part of a Cabinet shakeup on November 3, 1975, Ford named Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, Kissinger's deputy at the NSC, as National Security Advisor.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_National_Security_Council_1977-1981
    Carter resolved to maintain his access to a broad spectrum of information by more fully engaging his Cabinet officers in the decision-making process. He envisaged the role of the National Security Council to be one of policy coordination and research, and reorganized the NSC structure to ensure that the NSC Adviser would be only one of many players in the foreign policy process. Carter chose Zbigniew Brzezinski for the position of National Security Adviser because he wanted an assertive intellectual at his side to provide him with day-to-day advice and guidance on foreign policy decisions.


    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    starroute Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-09-06 10:41 PM
    Response to Reply #12
    13. And speaking of Central Asia...
    http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/augsep05.htm

    Bush oil scandals spread throughout Central Asia. The Bush family does not care for the recent disclosures of documents and other inside information on WMR that point to their close business connections to the Saudis, Bin Ladens (Osama included), and various front companies, and brass plate "folding tent" shell corporations around the world. Now they can add "Kazakhgate" to the growing list of scandals and criminal activity involving themselves and their closest business associates.

    More details concerning illegal Bush enterprises are coming out in the trial of former lobbyist for the oil industry and the Kazakhstan government, Jim Giffen, a New York investment banker. Giffen was indicted for bribing Kazakhstan government leaders with some $84 million in return for lucrative oil drilling rights for Amoco, Mobil, Phillips Petroleum, and Texaco in the years immediately following the fall of the USSR and the independence of Kazakhstan under the rule of Nursultan Nazarbayev, a former Soviet Communist Party leader. Giffen also represented the interests of Chevron in the former USSR. Kazakhstan's Tengiz oil fields rank among the world's largest reserves.

    Giffen is accused of violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits American businessmen from bribing foreign officials. However, Giffen's attorneys are contending that their client's actions and those of his bank, Mercator, were carried out with the knowledge and encouragement of the CIA under then-director Robert Gates.

    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    lyonn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-10-06 02:07 PM
    Response to Original message
    14. Robert Parry's Article - A Must Read! EOM
    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, 01:28 AM
    Response to Original message
    Advertisements [?]
     Top

    Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) 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