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

Skip to comments.

Iranian Alert - February 12, 2005 - Will Washington Support Democracy in Iran? MUST READ!
Regime Change Iran ^ | 2.12.2005 | DoctorZin

Posted on 02/12/2005 1:52:25 PM PST by DoctorZIn

Top News Story

Will Washington Support Democracy in Iran?

Michael Rubin



A Stalemated Iran Policy

In his January 20, 2005, inaugural speech, President George W. Bush declared, "America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude." Less than two weeks later, Bush argued in his State of the Union address that "the victory of freedom in Iraq will...inspire democratic reformers from Damascus to Tehran." Such statements are not mere rhetoric, but mark a new willingness to advance democracy in Iran.

During Bush's first term in office, the U.S. government lacked an Iran policy. The State Department, Pentagon, Central Intelligence Agency, and Treasury Department twice failed to reach consensus on a National Security Policy Directive. Neither then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice nor the President forced the issue. As a result, American policy was schizophrenic. While Bush labeled Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil" in his January 2002 State of the Union Address, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage described Iran as a "democracy."1

With no clear White House policy direction, Senate Republicans likewise took contradictory positions. While Arlen Specter (Pennsylvania) dined with the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations,2 Sam Brownback (Kansas) introduced an Iran Freedom and Democracy Support Act which would have created a $50 million fund to support opposition satellite stations and civil society.

State Department lawyers, meanwhile, argued that non-interference clauses in the 1980 Algiers Accords, the agreement which had led to the release of the U.S. embassy hostages, prohibited funding of opposition media. Retired National Security Advisors, though, disputed the State Department's line.3 In recent weeks, the White House legal office has opined that nothing in the Accords prevents assistance to Iranian democrats.

New National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley's decision to remove Richard Haass protégé Meghan O'Sullivan from the Iran portfolio (she retains her position as senior director for Iraq at the National Security Council) also bodes well for a more activist policy, especially as the new National Security team again reviews Washington's policy - or lack thereof - toward Tehran. O'Sullivan had long been both dismissive of Iranian dissidents and a proponent of engaging the Islamic Republic.

Why Now?

The Bush administration's new focus on Iran is a reflection not only of the President's sincere conviction that the Iranian people deserve freedom and liberty, but also of the belief that the United States cannot live with a nuclear Islamic Republic of Iran. While many European officials and American academics describe Iranian politicians like former president and current Expediency Council chairman 'Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani as a pragmatist,4 U.S. policymakers do not dismiss his December 14, 2001, threats to initiate a nuclear first strike against Israel,5 nor do they dismiss as rhetoric banners reading "Israel must be uprooted and erased from history," draped over medium-range Shihab-3 missiles in a September 22, 2003, military parade.6

The Islamic Republic's potential threat to American security is just as serious, though, both because of Tehran's determination to develop satellite launching capability which could well substitute as an intercontinental ballistic missile delivery system,7 and because of the regime's continued sponsorship of terrorists. American officials continue to blame Iranian intelligence for planning the 1996 bombing of an American military barracks in Khobar, Saudi Arabia.8 The 9/11 Commission's bipartisan intelligence review found that the Iranian regime lent passive support to many of the 9/11 hijackers, between eight and ten of whom transited Iran in the year before the attack.9 Washington also takes seriously reports that Iranian authorities have sheltered senior al-Qaeda figures in Revolutionary Guard bases near the Caspian town of Chalus.10

While some editorialists and politicians argue that Washington should support the diplomacy of the European Union troika of London, Paris and Berlin, many European diplomats and analysts privately acknowledge that they believe Tehran's acquisition of a nuclear bomb to be inevitable, a tacit admission that European diplomacy is a charade. American officials may not be so blunt, but many believe their European counterparts care more about the preservation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty than they do about Iran going nuclear. If the European Union allows the Islamic Republic to negotiate acquisition of nuclear capability, then they need not admit the emptiness of the current non-proliferation regime.

Even if Iran's acquisition of the bomb is inevitable, to American strategists, the question is not whether the United States can live with a nuclear Iran, but rather whether the United States can live with a nuclear Islamic Republic of Iran. To many Bush administration officials, the danger is not necessarily that the Islamic Republic would use its nuclear weapon against the United States, but rather that the feeling of immunity from retaliation that a nuclear capability might lend regime ideologues would lead to an increase in terrorism in the Middle East and Europe, and violent attempts to subvert Iraq and Afghanistan. Iranian authorities, for example, ignored numerous Turkish diplomatic demarches, and only scaled back support for Kurdistan Workers Party [PKK] terrorists operating in Turkey after the Turkish Air Force bombed the Iranian border town of Piranshahr.11 Had the Islamic Republic enjoyed a potential nuclear retaliation capability, Turkish authorities could likely have not forced an abandonment of Tehran's PKK support. Meanwhile, American authorities are increasingly concerned by the resurgence of the Revolutionary Guards within the Islamic Republic's political class. Revolutionary Guard influence has been most recently evidenced by their effective veto of Turkish commercial involvement in the communications sector and Tehran's new airport.12

Such concerns - and the unwillingness to assume that regime ideologues will not try to act upon their deeply-held beliefs about the United States and Israel - are responsible for the current debate about the efficacy of military action. While targeted strikes on nuclear and ballistic missile sites might not eliminate the Islamic Republic's capability, the question is whether they could delay Tehran's nuclear ambitions beyond the lifespan of the Islamic Republic.

Are Iranians Ready for Democracy?

The best option from an American point of view would be a peaceful transition of power leading to an Iranian abandonment of the Islamic Republic's more threatening convictions. The relevant question therefore becomes whether the Iranian people are ready for democracy and, if so, when they might rise up and demand real rather than cosmetic rights. No one in Washington seeks to use military force to oust the Iranian regime, and rumors that the U.S. government even considered lending support to the Mujahidin al-Khalq are without basis. Democracy advocates within the Bush administration are likely to ask whether they can take any actions which would catalyze the Iranian people's ability to replicate last year's peaceful revolutions in Georgia and the Ukraine.

Both anecdotal and statistical evidence indicate the Iranian people are ready for change. While some outside analysts continue to speak of a dichotomy between hardliners and reformers, most Iranians now accept that the political tension within Iran is between regime and dissident. On December 6, 2004, students heckled Mohammad Khatami, chanting "Shame on you" and "Where are your promised freedoms?"13

In August 2002, the Tarrance Group, a professional polling outfit, conducted a survey of Iranian public opinion. They randomized the last four digits of every Tehran telephone exchange, and surveyed residents rich and poor. Just 21 percent of the statistically-representative sample of more than 500 people said that the Guardian Council represented the will of the Iranian people, while only 19 percent supported a politically-active clergy. The poll also found significant economic malaise, perhaps motivating the disillusionment with their leadership. Only 16 percent felt that their economic situation had improved during the Khatami years, while 68 percent said their family's financial situation had declined since the Islamic Revolution.14

A quarter century of theocracy has moderated the Iranian people. While studying in Iran in 1996 and 1999, many Iranians told me they supported Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini less out of an endorsement of his views than out of a reaction to the dictatorship of the Shah. While American and European intellectuals may criticize Bush's "Axis of Evil" rhetoric as simplistic, the fact remains that there is a correlation between Bush's moral clarity and the willingness of Iranians to take to the street, as they did en masse in July 1999,15 October 2001,16 November 2002,17 and July 2003,18 and at a number of more localized demonstrations.19


Historic Opportunity: The Call for a Referendum

Iranians, inheritors of a 2,500-year-old culture, are far more historically aware than many in the West. Recent democratic developments in Iran coincide with a number of symbolic anniversaries. December 2005 marks the hundredth anniversary of the start of Iran's Constitutional Revolution when merchants, liberals, clergy, and nationalists rose up to demand basic rights in the face of an autocratic ruler. After a year of struggle, the Shah granted the Iranian people a constitution. In December 2006, Iranians may ask why their forefathers had rights today's Iranians no longer enjoy.

On April 1, 2004, Iranians marked a more recent anniversary - the 25-year anniversary of Khomeini's declaration of an Islamic Republic. On that day, Khomeini announced the results of a referendum asking a simple question: "Do you want an Islamic Republic." Ninety-eight percent of Iranian voters said "Yes." "By casting a decisive vote in favor of the Islamic Republic," Khomeini told an enthusiastic crowd, "you have established a government of divine justice." Increasingly, though, a growing and disparate number of Iranian groups are suggesting that Iran is ready for a new referendum.20 Many Iranians suggest a simple question, "Theocracy or democracy." The Tarrance Group poll found that 71 percent of Iranians would favor such a poll.21 While it is not likely that the Islamic Republic's leadership would ever consent to an internationally-supervised referendum - they understand the contempt with which most of their charges view them - such a referendum would better focus international attention on the fundamental issue of the Islamic Republic's lack of legitimacy and moral bankruptcy.

Into this tinderbox was inserted the success of Iraq's January 30, 2005, elections, that country's first free poll in a half century. It is a juxtaposition Iranians - many of whom believe themselves to be culturally superior to their Arab neighbors - cannot miss. In June 2005, Iranians will march to the polls to elect a president. Under the terms of the Islamic Republic's constitution, the new president will have only limited power and will remain subordinate to the unelected Supreme Leader, Ayatollah 'Ali Khameini. While the unelected Guardian Council in Iran severely limits the choice of candidates in Iran, Iranians have already noted the full range of candidates allowed to compete in Iraq's elections. Many European, American, and Arab commentators sought to correlate voter turnout with election legitimacy in Iraq. The same standards might be applied to Iran, where many Iranians may choose to stay home as Iranian pilgrims in Iraq estimated that 80 percent of their compatriots did during the February 2004 Majlis elections.

After four years of policy ambiguity, the Bush administration will finally make a concerted approach to change the status quo in Iran. European officials may calculate they can live with a nuclear Islamic Republic of Iran, but they are wrong. If the current regime goes nuclear, Iran will unleash a new and potentially devastating wave of terrorism which will end any hope for stabilization in Iraq and Afghanistan, and peace in the Middle East. The White House is right to pursue democratization as a solution. Europe would be wise to hope for its success because the alternative for Washington might not be acceptance of a nuclear Iran, but rather military action.

*     *     *

Notes

1. Robin Wright, "U.S. Now Views Iran in More Favorable Light; a Top Official Makes a Distinction between the regime in Tehran and those of fellow 'axis of evil' members North Korea and Iraq," Los Angeles Times, February 14, 2003.

2. Robin Wright, "Activity Heats Up as U.S. and Iran Flirt with Closer Ties," Washington Post, February 1, 2004.

3. Michael Ledeen, "Act on Iran," Wall Street Journal, October 23, 2002.

4. Reuel Marc Gerecht, "Going Soft on Iran," Weekly Standard, March 8, 2004.

5. Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran, December 14, 2001.
6. Ron Kampeas, "As Palestinian Picture Improves, Ominous Signs About Iranian Nukes," Jewish Telegraphic Agency, November 22, 2004.

7. "Iranian 'Sputnik' Could be Trojan Horse for Tehran's Ballistic Missile Program," Aviation Week Group, November 28, 2004.

8. The 9-11 Commission Report, p. 60.

9. The 9-11 Commission Report, p. 240. Also see: "Iran's Link to al-Qaeda: What the 9-11 Commission Found," Middle East Quarterly (Fall 2004).

10. "Nearly 400 al-Qaeda members and other terror suspects in Iran," Agence France Presse, July 15, 2004.

11. "Iran Accuses Turkish Jets of Bombing its Territory," Associated Press, July 18, 1999.

12. Karl Vick, "Politics on Collision Course at Shuttered Iranian Airport," Washington Post, August 10, 2004.

13. "Students Heckle Iranian President," BBC News, December 6, 2004; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4072887.stm

14. Public Opinion Survey in Iran, August 23-28, 2002, Tarrance Group.

15. "Fateful Moment in Iran," New York Times, July 14, 1999.

16. "Tehran Gripped by Pro-Western Street Violence," Independent, October 27, 2001.

17. "Iranian Student Protestors Call Referendum on Hard-Line Rulers," New York Times, November 29, 2002.

18. "Student Leaders Seized by Vigilantes in Iran," New York Times, July 10, 2003.

19. See reporting, for example, of the Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran, www.daneshjoo.org

20. Eli Lake, "Iranian Democrats Establish a United Front," New York Sun, December 7, 2004.

21. Public Opinion Survey in Iran, August 23-28, 2002, Tarrance Group.

*     *     *

Michael Rubin, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is editor of the Middle East Quarterly. He served as an Iran and Iraq staff advisor to the Office of the Secretary of Defense between 2002 and 2004.

A Daily Briefing of Major News Stories on Iran:

CIA Operation in Iran Failed When Spies Were Exposed - Greg Miller, LA Times

Iranians would not defend the regime against a foreign attack - Iran Press Service



TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: alqaedaandiran; alsadr; anniversary; armyofmahdi; axisofevil; axisofweasels; ayatollah; azadi; binladen; china; cleric; democracy; elbaradei; eu; freedom; freedomdeficit; germany; humanrights; iaea; insurgency; iran; iranianalert; iraq; irgc; iri; islam; islamicrepublic; japan; journalist; kazemi; khamenei; khatami; moqtadaalsadr; mullahs; muslims; persecution; persia; persian; politicalprisoners; protests; rafsanjani; regimechangeiran; revolutionaryguard; rumsfeld; russia; satellitetelephones; shiite; southasia; southwestasia; studentmovement; studentprotest; terrorism; terrorists; us; vevak; wot; zawahiri

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail DoctorZin

1 posted on 02/12/2005 1:52:27 PM PST by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yans Wife; fat city; freedom44; Tamsey; Grampa Dave; PhiKapMom; McGavin999; Hinoki Cypress; ...
Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread – The Most Underreported Story Of The Year!

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail DoctorZin”

2 posted on 02/12/2005 1:54:52 PM PST by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn; McGavin999; freedom44; nuconvert; sionnsar; AdmSmith; parisa; onyx; Pro-Bush; Valin; ...

PING


3 posted on 02/12/2005 1:56:37 PM PST by F14 Pilot (Democracy is a process not a product)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: F14 Pilot

Let Freedom Reign!


4 posted on 02/12/2005 1:58:39 PM PST by blackie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
After a first term marked by schizophrenic Iran policy initiatives, the Bush White House . . . *YAWN*

It's always those stupid Americans effing things up, ain't it? HA!

The REAL question is whether those stupid, backward, muslim, schizophrenic, Iranian lunatics will embrace democracy. I say no. Not a chance.

5 posted on 02/12/2005 2:02:31 PM PST by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

I am sorry, but I am getting a little sick of these "students" going on and on about regime change in Iran and how WE have to help... It's their country, and if the regime change rhetoric is as popular amongst its people as they are trying to get us to believe, just what exactly are they waiting for?


6 posted on 02/12/2005 2:02:56 PM PST by oolatec
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
This long and detailed article ignores one critical fact. In the last national elections in Iran, the mullahs canceled the candidacies of those candidates for the national legislature that they disapproved of. Therefore, the "reformers" were unable to succeed in the elections because their candidates (most of them) were thrown off the ballot.

Why does this analysis not deal with this subject? If and only if there are going to be a new Iranian election soon, and there is any reason to believe that the same electoral fraud will not occur again. This is critical. Why isn't it mentioned?

Congressman Billybob

Click for latest, "Was Howard Dean behind a Daring Art Theft?"

7 posted on 02/12/2005 2:03:43 PM PST by Congressman Billybob (My tagline is on vacation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oolatec

They are waiting for some to stop nagging and start backing them up.


8 posted on 02/12/2005 2:13:33 PM PST by Khashayar (We are the champions, No time to lose us!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

In a general way this article is true. We need regime change in Iran, and we'd prefer that it be done from within.

But.

In the first place, nuclear arms are NOT inevitable. We must insist that they dismantle their nuclear capability, or do it for them. A Democratic Iran would be safer than the present government, but the region is too unstable to be trusted with nuclear weapons.

In the second place, there will have to be a revolution, not just an election. One way or another, prefereably bloodlessly or with a minimum of bloodshed, the students will have to overthrow the Mullahs. The Mullahs will never give up their power unless they are forced to.

This may require a selective Israeli and/or American strike.


9 posted on 02/12/2005 2:16:02 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

Agreed!


10 posted on 02/12/2005 2:17:39 PM PST by Khashayar (We are the champions, No time to lose us!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

"In the last national elections in Iran, the mullahs canceled the candidacies of those candidates for the national legislature that they disapproved of."

They always do.

"the "reformers" were unable to succeed in the elections..."

Didn't matter. No one wanted them.

There's an election for President coming in May (I think) Won't matter. Majority of people will do as last election: Stay home. They don't want the "reformers" any more than the hardliners. A mullah's a mullah. They ALL have to GO.


11 posted on 02/12/2005 2:19:47 PM PST by nuconvert (No More Axis of Evil by Christmas ! TLR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

One can argue how beneficial it is that people who have no freedom in their own nations, and unwilling or unable to fight for it - flee to the USA.

Once here, (in the USA), they urge the USA to spend its blood and treasure (the US military)to accomplish what they could not.

Whenever we have made supreme sacrifices in our efforts to help nations acquire freedom from despots, the USA has always been villified as imperialists. (Haiti, Grenada, Cuba, Venezuela, Columbia, North Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, Lebanon)

Let us remember that Iranians drove the Shah into exile and death, begged for the return of Ayatollah Khoumani from France (surprise) and were complacent in the installation of the Mullahs. Whose responsibility is it to change Iran's regime?

Duh!

Please don't call President Bush's Iran policy schizophrenic.



12 posted on 02/12/2005 2:20:30 PM PST by highflight (from a distance - buzzards might appear as eagles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: highflight
Let us remember that Iranians drove the Shah into exile and death

Minority of Iranians did!

13 posted on 02/12/2005 2:45:37 PM PST by Khashayar (We are the champions, No time to lose us!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Bump!


14 posted on 02/12/2005 4:35:11 PM PST by windchime (Hillary: "I've always been a preying person")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: windchime
More aerial invasions of Iran:

USA USING 'DRONE' AIRCRAFT TO SPY ON IRAN
Sat Feb 12 2005 20:00:05 ET

The Bush administration has been flying surveillance drones over Iran to seek evidence of nuclear weapons programs and detect weaknesses in air defenses, the WASHINGTON POST is planning to splash on Sunday.

Newsroom sources tell DRUDGE: The small, pilotless planes, penetrating Iranian airspace from U.S. military facilities in Iraq, use radar, video, still photography and air filters designed to pick up traces of nuclear activity to gather information that is not accessible to satellites, the officials said.

The aerial espionage is standard in military preparations for an eventual air attack and is also employed as a tool for intimidation.

"The Iranian government, using Swiss channels in the absence of diplomatic relations with Washington, formally protested the illegal incursions, according to Iranian, European and U.S. officials."


Well, we're applying some more pressure on Iran. Let's see what happens when they shoot one of the drones down...
15 posted on 02/12/2005 5:15:10 PM PST by JWojack (Rice for President in 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JWojack

I think a few months ago I read that the Americans were sending F-16's and the like briefly into Iranian airspace to test their defenses. Now pilotless planes. Perhaps they'll use the drones as bait - to see where the anti-aircraft guns and missle launchers are?

I wouldn't be surprised if they are gathering intelligence that can show the Iranians up as liars once and for all at the UN Security Council. We'll have solid proof this time. Though it's always best to have assets on the ground - which is also the hardest to do.

Making progress every day now, it seems...


16 posted on 02/12/2005 5:21:15 PM PST by JWojack (Rice for President in 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Satellite photos and drone footage won't do this time... remember Powell's speech at the UN in 2002?


17 posted on 02/12/2005 7:47:04 PM PST by oolatec
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
I am not impressed with this article. There is nothing inevitable about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

Also, this reliance on "regime change" seems to me to be a blind, just as the Soviets fooled the West so well back with The Trust and the machinations of the Skoblins.

We do not have to wait on the Iranian people to rise up, and while we certainly would not mind aiding any real opposition, determining who is real and who is a tool of Iranian counter-intelligence is a matter that takes time that we just don't have.

The clock has ran out on this; if we wait much longer, Iran will have a fait accompli. I believe that President Bush will take the necessary action soon; if there is real Iranian resistance, then I hope that they show their bona fides soon.

All of this insistence on receiving U.S. cash and simultaneously pushing us away from military action makes me wary of the motives of those who urge us to wait, and wait some more.

18 posted on 02/12/2005 9:45:22 PM PST by snowsislander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
This thread is now closed.

Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread – The Most Underreported Story Of The Year!

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail DoctorZin”

19 posted on 02/13/2005 3:51:55 AM PST by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Khashayar

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.

What steps did the MAJORITY of Iranians take to stop the MINORITY from ruining the Nation?


20 posted on 02/13/2005 5:44:24 AM PST by highflight (from a distance - buzzards might appear as eagles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Bump


21 posted on 02/13/2005 7:37:19 AM PST by Valin (DARE to be average!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

The truth is no one knows but we know they went democratic in 1953. There is a good possibility though that they will be exemplary because they have craved it for 26 years. The western influence on Persian culture is much stronger than mullahs brand of Islam, which is being rejected by Iranians and that’s what this whole forum is about. The wish of the people with whatever other benefits as welcome side effects.


22 posted on 02/13/2005 12:16:20 PM PST by Reza2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: highflight

Do you have any idea the bloodbath that took place and how many thousands were killed during just the first year?


23 posted on 02/13/2005 3:30:27 PM PST by nuconvert (No More Axis of Evil by Christmas ! TLR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: highflight

A very good question. The answer requires a frame of reference that does not exist in a beautiful democratic mind. The threat of loosing ones life. Whoever protested against mullahs was illuminated or silenced with extortion. The Iran Iraq war had the bulk of the protestors on the front lines amongst their 13 and 14 year old sons doing human wave attacks. One more reason not to consider invading Iran now. Iranian patriotism made them give their lives knowing it was supporting illegitimacy but it was better than defeat or occupation by Iraq.


24 posted on 02/14/2005 6:52:16 PM PST by Reza2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

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