Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iraq conspired with Bin Laden to produce WMDs...according to Richard Clarke
Washington Post

Posted on 03/22/2004 10:37:25 PM PST by Jim_Curtis

Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at El Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: alqaedaandiraq; binladen; iraq; pantsonfire; richardclarke; sadda; wmd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-143 next last
Clarke did provide new information in defense of Clinton's decision to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles at the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, in retaliation for bin Laden's role in the Aug. 7 embassy bombings. While U.S. intelligence officials disclosed shortly after the missile attack that they had obtained a soil sample from the El Shifa site that contained a precursor of VX nerve gas, Clarke said that the U.S. government is "sure" that Iraqi nerve gas experts actually produced a powdered VX-like substance at the plant that, when mixed with bleach and water, would have become fully active VX nerve gas.

Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at El Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.

Given the evidence presented to the White House before the airstrike, Clarke said, the president "would have been derelict in his duties if he didn't blow up the facility."

Clarke said the U.S. does not believe that bin Laden has been able to acquire chemical agents, biological toxins or nuclear weapons. If evidence of such an acquisition existed, he said, "we would be in the process of doing something."

(Excerpted from "Embassy Attacks Thwarted, U.S. Says; Official Cites Gains Against Bin Laden; Clinton Seeks $10 Billion to Fight Terrorism," Vernon Loeb, Washington Post, A02, January 23, 1999.)

Thanks to Wallaby for looking up this old article, I thought it deserved its own thread since I've heard the libs whine a thousand times that there is no link between OBL and Saddam. Well, their new hero thinks so.

1 posted on 03/22/2004 10:37:25 PM PST by Jim_Curtis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jim_Curtis
The liberal media is going to have a cow now.
2 posted on 03/22/2004 10:38:20 PM PST by GeronL (http://www.ArmorforCongress.com......................Send a Freeper to Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Green Knight; ganeshpuri89
Can I get a "Hell yeah?"
3 posted on 03/22/2004 10:41:39 PM PST by Angelus Errare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jim_Curtis; Howlin
This looks interesting.....
4 posted on 03/22/2004 10:41:53 PM PST by Indy Pendance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim_Curtis
Bump.
5 posted on 03/22/2004 10:41:59 PM PST by Cap Huff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim_Curtis
"Iraq conspired with Bin Laden to produce WMDs...according to Richard Clarke"
Why was this not in the 60 minutes interview? And how can Clarke say that this is the case, yet still oppose removing Saddam?
6 posted on 03/22/2004 10:42:06 PM PST by Betaille ("Show them no mercy, for none shall be shown to you")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Angelus Errare
is this thw whole article?
7 posted on 03/22/2004 10:42:22 PM PST by Republic Rocker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Indy Pendance; Jim_Curtis
Indy, from what Jim has posted so far, this article is WAY interesting.
8 posted on 03/22/2004 10:42:55 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GeronL; Jim_Curtis
The liberal media is going to have a cow now.

I disagree. Consistency of thought or logic is not a benchmark for the left. They can ignore this point entirely while preaching that everything negative he says is gospel.

9 posted on 03/22/2004 10:43:07 PM PST by Lawgvr1955 (I am not completely worthless; I can always serve as a "bad example".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Are you kidding me? The liberal media will never report this. It's up to Talk radio and FoxNews. We'll see.
10 posted on 03/22/2004 10:44:35 PM PST by Right_Mom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jim_Curtis
Dick Clarke isn't going to get near as much mileage as Paul O'Neill and who is talking about O'Neill these days?

Exactly! No one!
11 posted on 03/22/2004 10:44:56 PM PST by Fledermaus ( Frm ^;;^ says, "Tick off France, Germany, Spain and Al Qaeda - VOTE BUSH!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim_Curtis
Send this to Drudge, Foxnews, Rush, and anybody else who will report it ASAP. Excellent work Sleuths!
12 posted on 03/22/2004 10:45:41 PM PST by Betaille ("Show them no mercy, for none shall be shown to you")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right_Mom
I've sent so many letters to my LA TIMES that my wrist hurts....I can not believe we live in a so called Free country yet are controlled by the press and media......
13 posted on 03/22/2004 10:46:01 PM PST by Republic Rocker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Jim_Curtis
This deserves a bump.
14 posted on 03/22/2004 10:46:37 PM PST by FranklinsTower
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Can we have a link to the entire article?
15 posted on 03/22/2004 10:47:24 PM PST by COEXERJ145
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Jim_Curtis

16 posted on 03/22/2004 10:47:40 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Betaille
Two reasons.

1. CBS is proterrorist, proCommunist and truly antiAmerican .... and owns Clarke's book.

2. CBS and the Democrats say that Clarke lied then, but can be trusted now.

17 posted on 03/22/2004 10:48:44 PM PST by Diogenesis (If you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lawgvr1955; Right_Mom
I hope one of you have bunches of talk show host e-mail addresses on a mailing list.
18 posted on 03/22/2004 10:49:09 PM PST by GeronL (http://www.ArmorforCongress.com......................Send a Freeper to Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
BwAhHAhAHahAhAHHAHAahhAahAHAhahHHAhaha!
19 posted on 03/22/2004 10:49:23 PM PST by Republic Rocker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
Yeah but if this gets out... it will turn the Dems entire argument on its head! Clarke will be used as a source to SUPPORT GOING INTO IRAQ
20 posted on 03/22/2004 10:50:09 PM PST by Betaille ("Show them no mercy, for none shall be shown to you")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Betaille
Why was this not in the 60 minutes interview?

Rhetorical question?

21 posted on 03/22/2004 10:51:07 PM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Republic Rocker
Redstone is behind all this destruction to America...it's traditions and values.....
22 posted on 03/22/2004 10:51:38 PM PST by Republic Rocker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Jim_Curtis; Dog; Dog Gone; Coop; swarthyguy; Peach; FairOpinion; JustPiper; Luis Gonzalez; blam; ...
Must-read ping!

And duly added to my own questioning of Clarke's logic that the Iraq war detracted from the global campaign against al-Qaeda:

http://windsofchange.net/archives/004747.php
23 posted on 03/22/2004 10:52:02 PM PST by Angelus Errare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Betaille
I agree with you on both.

Just dont think the media will cover the truth (again).

24 posted on 03/22/2004 10:52:10 PM PST by Diogenesis (If you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Peach; prairiebreeze; Miss Marple; Dog; Molly Pitcher; Neets; Bitwhacker; Grampa Dave; ...
ping
25 posted on 03/22/2004 10:52:25 PM PST by kayak (The terrorists ... are offended by our existence as free nations. ~ GWB 3/19/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Betaille; GeronL; Wallaby
It gets better:

To: Jim_Curtis; Miss Marple; Howlin; section9; aristeides; Nita Nupress
Clarke's theory?

Here's the relevant passage from the Washington Post story of January 22, 1999:

Clarke did provide new information in defense of Clinton's decision to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles at the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, in retaliation for bin Laden's role in the Aug. 7 embassy bombings.

While U.S. intelligence officials disclosed shortly after the missile attack that they had obtained a soil sample from the El Shifa site that contained a precursor of VX nerve gas, Clarke said that the U.S. government is "sure" that Iraqi nerve gas experts actually produced a powdered VX-like substance at the plant that, when mixed with bleach and water, would have become fully active VX nerve gas.

Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at El Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.

Given the evidence presented to the White House before the airstrike, Clarke said, the president "would have been derelict in his duties if he didn't blow up the facility."

Clarke said the U.S. does not believe that bin Laden has been able to acquire chemical agents, biological toxins or nuclear weapons. If evidence of such an acquisition existed, he said, "we would be in the process of doing something."

(Excerpted from "Embassy Attacks Thwarted, U.S. Says; Official Cites Gains Against Bin Laden; Clinton Seeks $10 Billion to Fight Terrorism," Vernon Loeb, Washington Post, A02, January 23, 1999.)
184 posted on 03/22/2004 10:31:41 PM EST by Wallaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

26 posted on 03/22/2004 10:53:00 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
The liberal media will have no cow.

They will instead buck up their rewrite efforts and refortify their memory hole.

27 posted on 03/22/2004 10:53:03 PM PST by smoothsailing (Eagles Up !!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145
I don't have the whole article. I posted this Village Voice article and it referenced this Washington Post article. Wallaby was able to track down the article and posted the excerpt.


http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/9910/vest.php
28 posted on 03/22/2004 10:54:06 PM PST by Jim_Curtis (Free Milosevic.....Jail Annan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Jim_Curtis; All
I this it?

The Clinton Administration's Strikes on Usama Bin Laden: Limits to Power

29 posted on 03/22/2004 10:54:30 PM PST by I got the rope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Betaille
You ask those questions fully knowing the answer to them. He's a RAT bastard!
30 posted on 03/22/2004 10:57:17 PM PST by endthematrix (To enter my lane you must use your turn signal!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lawgvr1955; GeronL; Jim_Curtis; rmlew
"The liberal media is going to have a cow now."

I disagree. Consistency of thought or logic is not a benchmark for the left.

Correct. They can take contradictory positions without the slightest bit of cognitive dissonance.

31 posted on 03/22/2004 10:58:32 PM PST by Paleo Conservative (Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
If you combine this discovery with his CONNECTIONS TO THE KERRY CAMPAIGN... we may have a big scandal on our hands.
32 posted on 03/22/2004 10:59:03 PM PST by Betaille ("Show them no mercy, for none shall be shown to you")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Jim_Curtis; FairOpinion
Other reference items:

A Strategy's Cautious Evolution (Bush worked on plan to eradicate Al Qaeda pre-9-11)

Report Details Saddam's Support for Terrorists Who Killed Americans

The above link is the FreeRepublic discussion thread.

The actual article is :

"Saddam Hussein’s Philanthropy of Terror"

It is a pdf document with substantial footnotes and put together by Dewey Murdock of the Hudson Institute.

33 posted on 03/22/2004 11:01:00 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States - and war is what they got!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
This is what I found earlier today.

RICHARD CLARKE National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counterterrorism, National Security Council
Policy Conference at Lansdowne Conference Center October 16, 1998

First, the list of the most active state sponsors of terrorism has noticeably shifted. Ten years ago, the list consisted of only Libya, Iraq, and Syria. They are all still in the business but not on the top of my list of the most active state sponsors. The two on the top of my list presently are Iran and Afghanistan.

Third, terrorists are acquiring new and dangerous weapons -- weapons of mass destruction and computer weapons.

National Security Adviser Sandy Berger wrote an article for the op-ed page of today's Washington Times about that bombing, providing the clearest rationale to date for what the United States did. He asks the following questions: What if you were the president of the United States and you were told four facts based on reliable intelligence. The facts were: Usama bin Ladin had attacked the United States and blown up two of its embassies; he was seeking chemical weapons; he had invested in Sudan's military-industrial complex; and Sudan's military-industrial complex was making VX nerve gas at a chemical plant called al-Shifa? Sandy Berger asks: What would you have done? What would Congress and the American people have said to the president if the United States had not blown up the factory, knowing those four facts?

If these are new trends, what is the United States doing about it? In May, the president signed a security directive, Presidential Decision Directive 62, which is partially classified and contains three new initiatives the United States is undertaking in addition to all of the counterterrorism programs it has pursued for many years. The first program is active, ongoing, everyday disruption of terrorist groups. Whereas I cannot go into detail about what actions the United States is taking to disrupt terrorist groups, the basic philosophy behind this policy mirrors community policing belief: Get them off the streets, round them up. It has worked with friendly governments, friendly police, and friendly intelligence agencies. Long before our embassies in Africa were attacked on August 7, 1998, the United States began implementing this presidential directive. Since the embassies were attacked, we have disrupted bin Ladin terrorist groups, or cells. Where possible and appropriate, the United States will bring the terrorists back to this country and put them on trial. That statement is not an empty promise.

But, from General Schoomaker as reported by the Weekly Standard:

AS TERRORIST ATTACKS escalated in the 1990s, White House rhetoric intensified. President Clinton met each successive outrage with a vow to punish the perpetrators. After the Cole bombing in 2000, for example, he pledged to "find out who is responsible and hold them accountable." And to prove he was serious, he issued an increasingly tough series of Presidential Decision Directives. The United States would "deter and preempt...individuals who perpetrate or plan to perpetrate such acts," said Directive 39, in June 1995. Offensive measures would be used against foreign terrorists posing a threat to America, said Directive 62, in May 1998. Joint Staff contingency plans were revised to provide for offensive and preemptive options. And after al Qaeda's bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, President Clinton signed a secret "finding" authorizing lethal covert operations against bin Laden.

[snip]

These examples, among others, depict an increasingly aggressive, lethal, and preemptive counterterrorist policy. But not one of these operations--all authorized by President Clinton--was ever executed. General Schoomaker's explanation is devastating. "The presidential directives that were issued," he said, "and the subsequent findings and authorities, in my view, were done to check off boxes. The president signed things that everybody involved knew full well were never going to happen. You're checking off boxes, and have all this activity going on, but the fact is that there's very low probability of it ever coming to fruition. . . ." And he added: "The military, by the way, didn't want to touch it. There was great reluctance in the Pentagon."

Back to the speach:

The United States is engaged and busy with new policies and programs, but there are still those who do not yet understand U.S. policy on terrorism. To preempt some of the most frequently asked questions about U.S. terrorism policy -- which sometimes are statements posing as questions -- I thought I would offer the answers first.

Is not terrorism, like war, just really politics by other means? Is a little bit of terrorism not, after all, a fact of life? Is not terrorism always there like death and taxes? Can we really sustain our enthusiasm and our resources against terrorism, or do we only get involved after U.S. embassies get blown up in Africa, then tend to forget about it?

Are not terrorists really a little bit smarter and more adaptive than governments and always capable of outsmarting stodgy, old, bureaucratic governments? Is not it sometimes better to give in a little to terrorism rather than being so ideological about opposing it? Finally, is it not true that just as crime does pay, terrorism really does pay?

Presidential Decision Directive 62 offers President Bill Clinton's answers to those questions. One, the United States will never accept terrorism as a legitimate means of political activity. Two, the United States will never tolerate any terrorism at any level. Three, the United States will always be energetic at rooting out terrorism. Four, the United States will adopt, adapt, adjust, and seek to stay ahead of terrorists. Five, the United States will never appease terrorism or make concessions to terrorists. Finally, as the president, the attorney general and the secretary of state said publicly, the United States will punish those who engage in terrorism no matter how long it takes, no matter how much money it costs, and no matter where they seek to hide. The terrorism policy of the Clinton administration is not just what we say. It is what we do and will continue to do every day.


34 posted on 03/22/2004 11:02:46 PM PST by Indy Pendance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Howlin; Wallaby
"Given the evidence presented to the White House before the airstrike, Clarke said, the president "would have been derelict in his duties if he didn't blow up the facility." "

That's the one!

35 posted on 03/22/2004 11:03:25 PM PST by endthematrix (To enter my lane you must use your turn signal!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Betaille
It will remain STILL strictly censored by the New York Times because Emma Gilbey (past GF of Kerry)
has a hubby who is the NYTimes' Chief Editor, Bill Keller.



36 posted on 03/22/2004 11:04:01 PM PST by Diogenesis (If you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Fledermaus
and who is talking about O'Neill these days?

Paul O'Niell came out the day after the propaganda blast from the nit work and said without any doubt that he was misquoted.

O'Niel was not selling his own book. It was a slock writer who conned 60 minutes into a free promo with out-of context quotes that even made it to the radar screen. After O'Niel dissed the quotes, the media backed down real fast. No one has actually bothered to read his book, but I'm sure the writer (slcok) managed to make a buck.

37 posted on 03/22/2004 11:04:40 PM PST by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
"It will remain STILL strictly censored by the New York Times"
Conservative news sources(FR, NR, Foxnews, Drudge, Talk Radio) have already proven that they can expose a story to such an extent that the liberal media can no longer cover it up and has to cover it heavily.
38 posted on 03/22/2004 11:07:51 PM PST by Betaille ("Show them no mercy, for none shall be shown to you")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Betaille
Did not know that Drudge was "conservative".
39 posted on 03/22/2004 11:10:14 PM PST by Diogenesis (If you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Jim_Curtis
Clarke HAD to defend x42i's asprin factory fiasco

Here's what a Clarke contemporary had to say about him, around the time shortly before Clarke's retirrment.

Vince Cannistraro, former chief of operations at the CIA's Counterterrorism Center, said people at the agency "resented" Clarke "because he was a hands-on bureaucratic guerrilla who rode roughshod over the bureaucracies." Cannistraro acknowledged, however, that such an approach is sometimes useful.

Cannistraro knew Clarke during his tenure as deputy chief of intelligence and research at the National Security Council, where Clarke "often came up with questionable proposals for covert action," Cannistraro said. "He was contemptuous of the bureaucracy, and this attitude earned him few friends."

Prior to taking his post as cybersecurity adviser (see story), Clarke was responsible for recommending and planning the bombing of the Al Shifa plant in Sudan, which Cannistraro said was probably conducted on the basis of faulty intelligence.

40 posted on 03/22/2004 11:15:01 PM PST by stylin19a (Is it vietnam yet ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim_Curtis
All this information everyone is digging up points to a ton of information that Clarke knew about and the Clinton adminstration did nothing more than lob a few missles. I'm baffled as to why AQ and other terrorists did not attack us during his watch. The only thing that pops into my mind is Marc Rich, BCCI, Riaty (sp), etc and their global connections. Somehow all this is interconnected.
41 posted on 03/22/2004 11:18:22 PM PST by Indy Pendance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a
reitrrment=retirement

And Vince Cannistraro left CIA in 1991.
42 posted on 03/22/2004 11:21:57 PM PST by stylin19a (Is it vietnam yet ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
"Did not know that Drudge was "conservative"."

I don't know what his actual politics are... but he has been known to shatter the liberal media from time to time.
43 posted on 03/22/2004 11:22:43 PM PST by Betaille ("Show them no mercy, for none shall be shown to you")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
I think they call it a 'nuanced answer' these days.
44 posted on 03/22/2004 11:30:47 PM PST by Pikachu_Dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Betaille
I raked thru the WASHINGTON POST ARCHIVES....You can purchase the entire article for $2.95.......!

http://pqasb.pbarchiver.com/washingtonpost/38284880.html?did=38284880&FMT=ABS&FMTS=FT&date=Jan23,+1999&author=Vernon+Loeb&desc=Embassy+Attacks+Thwarted,+U.S.+Says%3b+Official+Cites+Gains+Against+Bin+Laden%3b+Clinton+Seek+$10+Billion+to+Fight+Terrorism
45 posted on 03/22/2004 11:37:01 PM PST by Republic Rocker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Republic Rocker
http://pqassb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/38284880.html?did=38284880&FMT=ABS&FMTS=FT&date=Jan23,+1999&author=Vernon+Loeb&desc=Embassy+Attacks+Thwarted,+U.S.+Says%3b+Official+Cites+Gains+Against+Bin+Laden%3b+Clinton+Seek+$10Billion+to+Fight+Terrorism

THIS ONE!
46 posted on 03/22/2004 11:44:18 PM PST by Republic Rocker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Indy Pendance
"Somehow all this is interconnected."

Now you're sounding like me! Dig further and you might not like what you see. That's why there is all that blacked out and redacted material in the Saudi report. Way too many names, places and events. It's less about national security than egg on the face. Unless it is in the context of lynching all the elite, politicians, CIA, terrorists, money launders and arms dealers. Then it's about their security.

47 posted on 03/22/2004 11:46:21 PM PST by endthematrix (To enter my lane you must use your turn signal!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Republic Rocker
Soory but I keep messin it up! The top link is correct except replace the pbarchiver with pqarchiver...just change the b and q!
48 posted on 03/22/2004 11:46:47 PM PST by Republic Rocker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
The liberal media is going to have a cow now.

This bovine birth will last 3 weeks max, then it will be on to another "Bush bashing" drama with hopes by the lib's that the next one will finally stick.

49 posted on 03/22/2004 11:49:05 PM PST by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jim_Curtis
This guy's a real fountain of information.

But let's not let trifling details like this get in the way of dog-piling on the President.
50 posted on 03/22/2004 11:49:30 PM PST by Imal (Apparently, the handicapped exemption for terrorist leaders has been revoked.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-143 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson