You are herecontent / Congress to Debate "Fixed" Pre-War Intelligence

Congress to Debate "Fixed" Pre-War Intelligence

Press Release from Congresswoman Barbara Lee
Ninth Congressional District of California
U.S. House of Representatives

Congress to Debate "Fixed" Pre-War Intelligence
House Panel Will Vote on Lee Resolution on the "Downing Street Memo"

Who/What: The House International Relations Committee will debate and vote on H.Res. 375, a Resolution of Inquiry introduced by Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA). The Resolution, which has bipartisan support and 70 cosponsors, calls upon the Bush administration to give Congress all information relating to communication with officials of the United Kingdom relating to U.S. policy in Iraq between January 1, 2002 and October 16, 2002, the date Congressional authority to use force in Iraq became law. The measure is a privileged resolution, meaning if it is not taken up by the International Relations Committee in a defined period of time, Representative Lee would be entitled to request that it be brought to the House floor for a vote.

Where: 2172 Rayburn House Office Bldg.

When: Wednesday, September 14th, 10:30 AM EDT

Background: On May 1, 2005, The Sunday Times (UK) published the leaked minutes from a US-British meeting on July 23rd, 2002. The "Downing Street Memo," as the minutes came to be known, as well as other documents that came to light subsequently, have raised serious questions as to whether the Bush administration manipulated intelligence data in order to justify the invasion of Iraq; the UN weapons inspection process was manipulated to provide a legal pretext for the war; and that pre-war air strikes were deliberately ramped up in order to soften Iraqi infrastructure in preparation for war, prior to the October Congressional vote authorizing the use of force. The Bush administration has not disputed the authenticity of these documents.

Since the publication of the memo, 131 Members of Congress have written the President, asking for answers to the questions it raises. Rep. Lee and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) delivered more than 575,000 petition signatures to the White House, demanding answers. All of these inquiries have gone unanswered.

"The American people deserve to know the truth about the circumstances under which our troops were sent to war," said Lee.

The memo and subsequent documents raise questions not only about the administration's case for war, but also the constitutional separation of powers, specifically whether Congress' power to authorize the use of force was circumvented through the manipulation of intelligence.

"The U.S. is currently at war in Iraq under an authority conferred to President Bush by the U.S. Congress," said Lee. "It is not only Congress' prerogative, it is our responsibility to make sure that the authority to use force was not granted under circumstances that were deliberately misleading."


Nathan Britton

Communications Director

Office of Congresswoman Barbara Lee

1724 Longworth House Office Bldg.

ph 202 225-2661

fax 202 225-9817


Mike Doyle (D-PA)
Hilda Solis (D-CA)
Steve Rothman (D-NY)
Doris Matsui (D-CA)
Bobby Scott (D-VA)
Dennis Cardoza (D-CA)


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I'm thankful for Representatives Conyers and Lee spearheading the request for an inquiry into the Downing Street Memo, but really, who ever thought such direct evidence would surface? It may be unprecedented. Anybody who had been on the scent knew long ago why the warmongers started this, but what was lacking was a formal proof.

Armed with the "Damning" Street Memo, I feel that the response of our "opposition" party is a bit too respectful. I am disappointed that every Democrat in Congress did not get off their seats, pick up signs, and ring the White House - and I mean immediately after the memo was leaked. Days from now, many people will converge on Washington to protest our government. Congressional democrats were already there.

Standard fare in the mainstream media as well as in both Left and Libertarian blogs, web sites and magazines, is that the Democrats are spineless. But this view simply does not fit the facts, and it is dangerous to boot, because it leads us to underestimate one of our most sinister and cynical pro-war adversaries, the Democratic Party establishment. For, if left to their own devices, the Dems will do what Kucinich warned of and substitute a Democratic for a Republican version of the war on Iraq.

The conventional wisdom is that the Dems are afraid to stand up to Bush's war, because they fear the accusation of being "soft on terrorism" or downright treasonous. And, we are told by the liberal punditocracy, this sort of charge will prevent our poor Dems from winning elections and ending the war which, deep down, they really oppose. So what's a poor Dem to do? Obviously call for "staying the course." This analysis is ever so convenient for the Dems. It gets the likes of Kerry, H. Clinton, Dean, Biden, Cleland and the rest, marvelously off the hook, bringing them the support of the anti-war forces. These are good men and women, we are told, just trying to win elections in the face of the ignorance of the benighted masses so as to bring us peace! Thus are hawks transmogrifed into doves, even as they cry out for more bloodshed, more troops and more death and destruction.

This whole whacko analysis cannot stand up to reality. First, the country, by a significant majority according to the polls, is against the war and long has been ­ even before the last presidential election. Now 60% want some or all troops withdrawn at once. The least popular option, the one favored by leading Democrats, is to send more troops, an option that draws the support of less than 10%, with 57%, saying they would be "upset" at such a move. Why would anyone wanting to win an election champion a view which hardly anyone favors and is even less popular than Bush's? Second, take as an example a senator like California's Diane Feinstein who is not planning to run for president and comes from a solidly anti-war state, so an anti-war position is no danger for her. And yet she calls for "staying the course."

No, the idea of the spineless but virtuous Democrat does not hold up. The real reason has to be that the Dems do not give a damn about the electorate. The Dem establishment must in fact favor the war. And the reason is not hard to find. They play to the same real but hidden constituencies as the Republicans ­ the oil tycoons, AIPAC, the barons of the military industrial complex and those who make their fortunes from empire, ranging from the banks to Bechtel. This is their class and if one of the pols dares play traitor to his class, he or she will soon be an outcast. Ask Ted Kennedy. When Kennedy called for immediate withdrawal from Iraq last January, he was virtually denounced by the rest of the Dem leadership. And although the media is afflicted with many and mortal problems, do not tell me that the media makes it impossible for the Dems to take a strong anti-war position. When Kennedy did so, it was all over the media from the front pages of the dailies to the Sunday morning TV talk shows.

The Dems know full well there is an enormous anti-war constituency out there. If they used their considerable resources to organize it and give voice to it, then it would quickly prevail. A sorry example is Cindy Sheehan's effort. Not a single major Democrat has shown up at Camp Casey. They are blowing off Sheehan just like Bush.

In fact far from being cowardly, the Dems are showing considerable spine in standing up to the anti-war constituency that routinely does the leg work and contributes the dollars to elect them. Here their courage and resolve befit heroes of Homeric proportions. In the face of powerful anti-war sentiment from their loyalists, the Dems resolutely call for "staying the course" in the war for which they voted. Now there is spine. There is fortitude, both testicular and ovarian.

But the Dems have now been exposed and about the last excuse they have for "staying the course" is to "help" the Iraqis. Of course they uttered no such sentiment when Clinton was imposing sanctions that resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi kids, a price Madeline Albright famously said was worth it to pressure Saddam Hussein. So the Dems either cry crocodile tears over the fate of the Iraqis, or avoid all mention of the war or else, like Russ Feingold, call for endless discussions of "exit strategies." I prefer the sentiment splashed across the cover of the paleocon American Conservative which proclaimed: "We do not need an exit strategy. We need an exit."

So next time you hear that the problem with the Dems is their spinelessness, do not believe a word of it. They are quite courageous in facing down their voting base to peddle death and destruction. To view them otherwise is to underestimate a potent, treacherous and insidious adversary of the anti-war movement.

SOURCE: Counterpunch

"Standard fare in the mainstream media as well as in both Left and Libertarian blogs, web that the Democrats are spineless."

Really? As the only hard line Libertarian who frequents this venue, to the best of my knowledge, I'd like to know just which libertarian sites you (or the author,John Walsh) refer to.Certainly none of the ones I frequent, such as:

and you most certainly won't find it where I blog personally at:

These unfounded and flippantly disrespectful remarks display a profound ignorance of Libertarian ideology, a belief system that differs so radically and at so fundamental a level with the standard junk food-esque left-wing, right-wing statism, as to expose your supposed "disagreements" for the silly pro-wrestling style competition that it really is.

From a Libertarian prespective, it does'nt take any astute ruminations to figure out that the demo's "failure" is not a result of "spinelessness", but rather the correct decision making of experienced, successful professional politicians. To us,it is blatantly clear that as long as the majority of war opponents will behave geniunely spinelessly in the voting booth, they don't have to bother to oppose the war.

That unseemly spectacle hopefully reached it's zenith in the last presidential election,where in states such as Florida, where we had eight presidential candidates on the ballot,two of them enthusiastically favored the war; one of them, schrewdly realizing that he had the "anti-war" vote in his back pocket, knew he could afford to advocate the sending of MORE troops to Iraq.And sure enough he got all the anti-war cowards to vote for him.

But he never had a chance at my vote, I can take pride in the fact that I voted for the candidate that faithfully promoted my beliefs.Political ideology was no excuse, as the full spectrum was represented by overt opponents of the war.

I attended the presidential debate here between Libertarian Michael Badnarik, and Green candidate David Cobb.It was right across US1 from, and scheduled a few hours before the debate between Bush and Kerry, so we could watch the clown show on television.

While I was disappointed in (but not surprised)by the result, I was more embarrassed by the lack of support for Mr.Cobb,who I found to be an inspirational leader,and that's coming from someone who is in general disagreement with him.

If all those who profess to adhere to his ideology had voted responsibly, rather than giving in to their irrational fears,he still would'nt have won, but imagine how much more influence he might have now.And remember, we most likely still have the same regime in power,ah, but under more pressure. Who knows where that might have gone? Somewhere better than where we're going, I suspect.

Had I gone the same route as the majority of you anti-war cowards, John Kerry would still have lost Florida, and the
Presidency, by one less vote.

The difference is, my conscience is clear, I did my part in expressing my opposition to the white house war criminal. What the hell did you do?

"The Dem establishment must in fact favor the war. And the reason is not hard to find. They play to the same real but hidden constituencies as the Republicans ­ the oil tycoons, AIPAC, the barons of the military industrial complex..."

Ok, and who's idea is it to put industrialists in a position where they must buy control of bureaucrats and politicians in order to thrive economically?

Libertarians advocate a free market, where the ONLY possible source of profit is the direct satisfaction of the consumer of the product or service in question as given freely by each consumer.Government does'nt step in to the picture, except in cases of fraud or coercion.
Politicians would be fewer, bureaucrats would be scarse,neither would have anything to merit buying their influence over.

This should not be conflated with the facsist oligarchy under which we labor now

And no, "the public" cannot police a system so vast and complex that congresspersons can't even read the laws they're passing themselves.

The only viable solution is to down-size government, disenfranchise politicans and power to the person!

---The Bikemessenger

Sorry if that particular phrase was overly broad. I have to admit that I wasn't much concerned about verifying its applicability to specific sites because I read it as merely a "straw man" introduction to the article's central point about the Dem leadership.

Accepted, I understand we're a very small minority. And besides you can't scrutinize every little detail.

---Thank you,
The Bikemessenger

Dear Robert Noval,

There is much I like about your definition of Libertarian beliefs, but I have some questions.

When you say "free market" according to what I hear you say is based on basic supply/demand philosophy, what or who would police the market?

It seems to me that our government was put together by "professionals" and "business owners" in Philadelphia. It would seem also that these men were interested in creating a government that would "take care" of their businesses and interest. IMHO, I think the free market as established by our founding fathers has been guilty of exploiting peoples, land, resources, etc all for the almighty golden egg!!! Our free market today has seen a virtual disappearing of unions as more business owners care less and less about worker needs and rights and more about profits and shares! Wal-Mart is our free market poster child!

Therefore, it seems "free market" is an oxymoron when my experience in life says the only thing free about business ethics today is to be free to rape our society of livable wages, health care, retirement, etc.

The terminology seems to mean many different things to different people. Galbraith discusses some of the "sloganeering" aspects of the semantics here.

I guess my biggest problem is trying to understand how fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders in a "free market" (aka capitalist) system can totally supplant most (all?) public interest protections -- even assuming those responsibilities are faithfully adhered to, a major question in itself. It seems to ignore many of the motivational facts of life.

On the other hand, I would have to admit that governments, as currently constituted, aren't exactly doing a brilliant job of public interest protection either.

I would venture to say nine out of ten Democrats in the country would support immediate withdrawl of troops from Iraq or withdrawl of troops within the next three to six months. That means that on this very important issue Democrats in Congress like Joe Lieberman, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Diane Feinstein, and numerous others do not represent the views of their base voters.

There is a simple solution to this problem. Refuse to vote for these people the next time they come up for election. Send them an email telling them you will not vote for any politician who does not support an immediate or quick withdrawl from Iraq.

I live in Washington State. One of my senators is Maria Cantwell. Cantwell not only voted to give Bush authority to invade Iraq, she was quoted in the Seattle Times shortly before the war started as saying what a good job Bush had done in bringing the world together to deal with Saddam Hussein. I will never again vote for her. There is one thing worse than being represented by a Republican. It is being represented by a Democrat who is more of a hawk than most Republicans.

Ordinary Democrats need to show that their vote cannot be taken for granted by elitist politicians who think they know better. I will get excited about the Democratic Party when it becomes a true opposition party to the Republicans.

Sounds like the truth to me.

Nice analysis! Too bad more people can't see the truth like this.

The Democratic Party gets most of its funding from corporate sources. Any Democrat who offends the corporate power structure risks having their funding cut off. This is the main reason they respond to corporate interests, while only pretending to address citizens' interests.

The solution is to support parties that don't accept corporate funding, like the Green Party. It can't be said any plainer than this.

It's very, very difficult. Americans are, almost from birth, imbued with a sense of "patriotism" that is based on legendary (dare I say mythological) notions. It has become an article of deepest and almost indisputable faith that the USA is the greatest country the world has ever seen and remains so for all time.

Facing realities and admitting to oneself today's truth about a horribly broken system of "free and democratic" governance flies in the face of all those "patriotic" beliefs that people want deparately to cling to. All "good Americans" are, therefore, partially blind almost as a matter of necessity. What individual wants or dares to face the scorn of his fellows for being "disloyal" or "anti-American"?

More Americans do seem to be opening their eyes to at least some aspects of current "reality-based" truth. But the awakening is neither easy nor painless. For many, in fact, it is quite excruciating. Unfortunately, we can't afford to be as gentle and patient as we might wish to be.

Congress will learn soon enough that they are not here to serve the president but the people. Wake up boys and girls! We want some answers.

Anybody in AIPAC's & PNAC's hip-pockets.

Representative Lee would be entitled to request that it be brought to the House floor for a vote.

What does "entitled to request" mean exactly? Is there a possibility that this whole exercise in democracy could be dismissed arbitrarily by the majority?

How does a resoultion become privledged? Who bestows the privledge? Why aren't all resolutions privledged?

Will this be covered on Cspan?

It might be a 'reach' but I believe that it is time to move on beyond "soft" to "smart" and this applies not just to terrorism but to crime (and other subjects) as well. I say, 'it might be a reach' because it takes applied thought to develop an alternative, 'smart on' approach. It is easier to adopt the opposition's position (better to be a bit more extreme so as not to appear 'soft.')

Perhaps if more leaders like Lee and Kucinich started using 'smart on' to label their approach others in the party would want to get aboard; everyone wishes to have their constituents see them as smart!

The party leaders in the senate like MARIA CANTWELL ARE NOT ANTI WAR! THEY ARE FAKES!!!!

Total fakes, they are more spineless than many repubs!!!! Not only spineless, corrupt and well fattened by defense contractors!!

They're making billions boys and girls, why would they care whether the war was illegal or not!?!??

LOL!!!! THAT is why the downing street minute/CIA investigation didn't raise every democrat to the roof in full opposition. They are as corrupt as the republican GOP...that's why.

Except for the progressive party of Conyers, Boxer etc nobody else is an opposition. Only senators like John Warner (R) and John Kerry (D) and congressman Walter Jones (R) seem to be anti-war at all.....only they care about the truth. Its time we all start the trials and get the truth stripped from their deadlocked hands....

Doug E.

If the Democrats in Washington were a TRUE opposition party, EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM would be publicly touting the DSMs as the smoking gun they truly are and publicly demanding answers from Bush at every opportunity. And EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM would be fighting for a photo op with Cindy Sheehan.

With the exception of and due respect to a few real patriots on Capitol Hill who are fighting the good fight, The Democrats continue to prove that they're just another group of power-mad, money- mad, control-mad, corporate-focused scumbag politicians.

The first thing America needs is a legitimate electoral process.

And the second necessity would be the spine to vote for real change.

John Perry

The DSM's are not a smoking gun you idiots. When are you finally going to realize this. This whole hearing will prove this. All you libs wanted us to go into Iraq when Clinton was around and now that we have a Pres with a pair that didn't take Saddam's $hit, you are all up in arms looking for anything to say that Bush committed WAR CRIMES... You people are unreal but it shouldn't suprise me, you same people are looking for things to go after Roberts too. Again, you find NOTHING??? Common theme.

So tell me this John, in the court of law in this country would a typed copy of a destroyed copy of the "original" even be admissible in the court of law???? The answer is an overwhelming NO!!!!!! You people will jump on anything and then say that Blair admitted that they were valid is preposturous. He never once said that the DSM was a legit doc. He did say that some info might be valid. But some info and ALL the info are 2 different things. I saw F 9-11 and Michael Moore's "documentary" was about as beleivable as Star Wars. You can spin anything you want when you are typing a "copy of the original" to move your own agenda. The fact that the "copy of the original" was destroyed to stump a police investigation is a great excuse that nulifies anything you want to say is credible about your DSM's. Can you imagine if the Right came up with this same type of crapola? You people would be enraged. Us Righties just sit back and laugh at your ridiculous attempts to do anything to try and find something, ANYTHING on Bush. Keep it up!!!!

Oh yeah, Katrina was not his fault either nor was the response after. The state and local governments are responsible for first response to disasters, not the federal gevernment. Morons...

And by "spining to vote" are you eluding to more voter fraud????? HAHA!!!! That doesn't work for you people either but you still can't let go of 2000. It is a sad state you people are in.

Richie "The Right Wing Kook" Rich

P.S. Keep up the good work, John, Doug, Yank, Richard... ;)

Who needs evidence "admissible in the court of law". Proof is irrelevant. We're taking a page out of Bush's own playbook and declaring him an "enemy combattant" along with all his PNAC gang.

You keep up the "good work" and you'll find yourself on the same indefinite detentions list. Hope you enjoy all the "frat house pranks" they've added to the interrogation procedures. And remember to say thank you to Wee Georgie for shredding all the U.S. contitutional protections when you meet him in the gulag.

The smoking GUN is admissable in any court, because there are recordings, and verfied evidence plus expert testimony.

There is no proceeds going to private corporations...these hearings are for, and sponsored, by WE THE PEOPLE!!!

Lets make sure these damn hearings get the job done....AND WE GET THIS TRAIN MOVING!!!!!

By the way, Congressman Gresham Barrett(R) has responded thanking me for the concerns regarding the downing street meeting. He seems to believe they are completely real, and so do many members of congress.

Keep up the pressure on everyone folks!

Doug Eldritch

get mommy to teach you to type like an adult

So lets not talk about any mommy eh douchebag, after all we know Bush's mom is an insufferable stuck up bitch who's full of hate.

Her blood pressure will boil over as this country uproots itself back to democracy.

Doug E.

they have their own website and the smoking guns (many) are from the horse's mouth ? Hitler did the same thing with Mein Kampf

Not to mention all the other smoking guns and whistleblowers accrued in the past 5 or so years (yes, they have been cooking these plots since BEFORE 9/11) You need an eye doctor also, Kooky.


An impeachment is not a legal proceding it is a political proceding. Evidence that is not "court of law" legal is perfectly admissable. Screw your legal procedings, how about a little common sense? Does any body in this country still not understand that the whole basis for this war was a pack of lies, and you do not have to have a smoking gub to proive it, my god man we don't have a smoking gun, we have a whole smoking country! with tens of thousands dead and hundreds of thousands wounded and maimed for life. How much more death, destruction and suffering are we going to let these criminals get away with. Not only impeachment but war crimes trials and a return to the constitution and the rule of law, God save this Republic, whats left of it!

You poor, ignorant blind fool.

"All you libs wanted us to go into Iraq when Clinton was around..."

I can't speak for anyone else, but I am not a "lib". You can place labels and play your political pussy games if you want to, lobbing rants like clueless scud missiles and lumping everyone who disagrees with you into one category, but I prefer to put my country first. You should try it sometime.

Admittedly, I did wonder why we didn't vaporize Saddam when he first kicked the weapons inspectors out during Clinton's term, just like I wondered why George Sr. didn't just go ahead and take Baghdad in 1991. But then I read Sr.'s reasoning for not doing it: Because it would have created the exact situation that we are dealing with now. Too bad Dubya doesn't read too.

"now that we have a Pres with a pair that didn't take Saddam's $hit, you are all up in arms looking for anything to say that Bush committed WAR CRIMES..."

If Dubya is so brave, how come he couldn't walk down his driveway and talk to Cindy Sheehan? With balls like that, it's a wonder how he ever had kids. Someone should order a DNA test to make sure Laura wasn't fooling around with the milk man.

There was no declaration of war, Rich. Without it, Congress had no authority to grant Bush the authority to go to war. They would have needed an amendment to the Constitution. But let's just assume for a second that the authorization was legit. Bush violated the terms anyway, becuase they required PROOF of weapons of mass destruction AND that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Add this to Abu Ghraib and there can be no doubt that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and any commander on the ground who oversaw that disgusting scene is a war criminal.

Saddam's shit? If the glorified camel jockey was such a threat, why was nobody in his immediate vicinity (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, ISRAEL) worried about him?

"So tell me this John, in the court of law in this country would a typed copy of a destroyed copy of the "original" even be admissible in the court of law????"

Perhaps not. But the originals would. They were not destroyed. Michael Smith typed the copies, free of any identifying marks made by the person who leaked the documents, and returned the originals. And even if the exact originals that he copied from were not available, don't you think that someone else's version of the originals (after all, they were meeting minutes, copies of which were distributed to everyone at the British cabinet meetings) could be retrived through a subpoena? In fact, that would actually be the perfect test of authenticity, wouldn't it?

"Oh yeah, Katrina was not his fault either nor was the response after. The state and local governments are responsible for first response to disasters, not the federal gevernment. Morons..."

There is certainly plenty of blame to go around. But to lay all the responsibility at the feet of Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco is itself irresponsible. Whether you like it or not Rich, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama are still part of the United States, and the buck stops with the feds. The feds response to Katrina was pathetic, and Dubya is the boss. He does indeed bear the majority of the responsibility.

"you still can't let go of 2000. It is a sad state you people are in."

Anybody who cares about democracy in this country should NEVER let go of 2000. Or 2004. I'd say that if you honestly think that George W. Bush was legitimately elected EITHER time, then YOU, my friend, are truly the one in the sad state.

Give up the Bush crusade Rich. It will always be a losing proposition.

John Perry

Why is it so difficult for you people to see that the Dems = Republicans = special interests before the nation! Most people in this country know that the war is a big mistake, and the reasons for waging it are lies. What they repeatedly fail to grasp however, is the utter duplicity of the Dems, and how both parties maintain a fake contest to keep Americans politically divided. The two party system was coopted by foreign and domestic special interests long ago, so if you really want representative government, you'd better think about turning most incumbent polititicians out of office ASAP! Both parties have corrupt leadership and are dedicated to the destruction of the U.S. as we know it. There are many reasons why the current war policies are dead wrong, not the least of which is how much peril it places the U.S., and the world in. While there are many people in this country like the "Right Wing Kook". They're good examples of the type of unthinking fool created by talk radio and TV. At least most of you here have sense enough to oppose Bush and the GOP, now all you need to do is raise your political sense to the next level, and start opposing the Democratic leadership and any Dem who tows the party line over the good of the nation.

Yes I agree, it is way time for some new party/s to move into the mainstream. I wonder just how much damage the two party system has to create before people wake up?

Roberts at High Court Confirmation Hearing: "I Have No Agenda"
The Senate opened confirmation hearings Monday for John Roberts to become the nation's 17th chief justice. If confirmed, Roberts would be the youngest chief justice in two centuries and would be positioned to lead the court for decades. We play Roberts' opening remarks.
Watch The Video 


Petition for impeachment

To: Rep. John Conyers, Jr     

Date: May 23, 2005

RE: The President’s Impeachable Offenses

Sign Petition

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Support This Site


Get free books and gear when you become a supporter.



Speaking Truth to Empire


Families United


Ray McGovern


Julie Varughese


Financial supporters of this site can choose to be listed here.



Ca-Dress Long Prom Dresses Canada
Ca Dress Long Prom Dresses on

Buy Books

Get Gear

The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.