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

Skip to comments.

Anti-war Ad Says Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld & Rice "Lied" About Iraq (FACT CHECK)
Annenberg Public Policy Center ^ | September 26, 2005

Posted on 09/27/2005 11:24:04 AM PDT by Ooh-Ah


We find some subtle word-twisting, and place the claims in context.

Summary

 

An anti-war coalition of mostly liberal groups ran a newspaper ad quoting six alleged lies about Iraq by President Bush and others.

But, like movie blurbs, the quotes sometimes look different when read in full context.

And while much of what the ad calls lies was indeed wrong, there's evidence that the President and his advisers believed the falsehoods at the time.

Analysis

 

The ad carried a bold-faced headline saying "They Lied," and six brief quotes from Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and National Security Adviser Rice (now Secretary of State). It also carried a list of American military personnel killed in Iraq, along with the words "They Died."

The ad appeared Sept. 22 in USA Today and more than a dozen other newspapers. The sponsor, "Win Without Wars," is a coalition  made up of groups including MoveOn.org Political Action, and using Fenton Communications, the same media consultant used by MoveOn.org. 

The brief quotes all seem starkly false in hindsight. But some are a bit too stark – they look a bit different when read in full context. Furthermore, calling them lies suggests Bush and his advisers knew they were wrong at the time. And a bipartisan commission concluded earlier this year that what the Bush administration told the world about Iraqi weapons – while tragically mistaken – was based on faulty intelligence.

"We found the weapons"

Bush is quoted as saying “We found the weapons of mass destruction,” but that's not all he said. The quote is from an interview with Polish television given May 29, 2003 – weeks after the fall of Baghdad, as Bush was starting to face questions about why no Iraqi stores of such weapons had been found.

Reading all of what Bush said makes clear he was referring both to "weapons" and to "manufacturing facilities" and was still clinging to what intelligence officials had told him about Iraqi mobile laboratories that supposedly were used for manufacturing biological weapons.

The full quote:

Q: Weapons of mass destruction haven't been found. So what argument will you use now to justify this war?
Bush, May 29, 2003: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.

In the end, neither weapons nor manufacturing facilities were found. Bush was wrong about the mobile laboratories, of course. He was repeating a claim transmitted to him by the CIA, which based its intelligence reports on an Iraqi source, code-named "Curveball," whom it later determined to be a fabricator. But the CIA didn't formally recall Curveball's reporting until May 2004, according to the report of the bipartisan Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. That CIA reversal came roughly a year after  Bush's interview with Polish television.

The intelligence commission, though appointed by Bush, included several Democrats including co-chair Charles Robb, a former senator and governor from Virginia. Lloyd Cutler, former White House counsel to Democratic Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, was "of counsel" to the commission. One of the Republican commissioners was Sen. John McCain, Bush's opponent in the 2000 Republican presidential primaries.

"Saddam Hussein had al-Qaeda ties."

The ad quotes Bush as saying, "There's no question Saddam Hussein had al-Qaeda ties." Bush said that September 17, 2003, after months of fruitless searching for evidence of WMD's in Iraq.

However, the full quote shows Bush also made clear that he was not claiming that Saddam had any connection to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In fact, he was knocking down a suggestion made four days earlier by Vice President Cheney, who said on NBC's Meet The Press that it is "not surprising that people make that connection" when asked why so many Americans believed Saddam was involved in the attacks.

Bush, Sept. 17, 2003: We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th . What the Vice President said was, is that he has been involved with al Qaeda. And al Sarawak, al Qaeda operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. He's a man who is still running loose, involved with the poisons network, involved with Ansar al-Islam. There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties.

Since the word "ties" can cover any connection, however weak, Bush was in fact stating the truth. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission later cited reports of several "friendly contacts" between Saddam and Osama bin Laden over the years, and cited one report that in 1999 Iraqi officials offered bin Laden a "safe haven," which bin Laden refused, preferring to remain in Afghanistan. But nothing substantial came of the contacts. The commission said: "The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship."

"We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators"

Cheney is quoted as saying, on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, "We will in fact, be greeted as liberators... I think it will go relatively quickly... [in] weeks rather than months."

Those quotes are actually from two separate interviews, and they do give a rosy prediction that failed to include the bloody insurrection and resistance that continues to this day.

The first Cheney quote comes from an NBC Meet the Press interview March 16, 2003. The full quote makes clear – as the ad's blurb does not – that Cheney is stating his own "belief." Thus, the statement would be true if that's what Cheney actually believed at the time.

Cheney, March 16, 2003: Now, I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . .

Q:  If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?

Cheney: Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. . . . The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.


The second quoted fragment is from another interview the same day on CBS's Face The Nation . The full quote shows Cheney qualified his prediction of quick victory, by saying the "really challenging part" may come in the "aftermath" of a quick military victory. That turned out to be quite accurate.

Cheney, March 16, 2003: I'm confident that our troops will be successful, and I think it'll go relatively quickly, but we can't...

Q: Weeks?

Cheney: ...we can't count on that.

Q: Months?

Cheney: Weeks rather than months. There's always the possibility of--of complications that you can't anticipate, but I'm--I have great confidence in our troops. The men and women who serve in our military today are superb. Our capabilities as a force are the finest the world has ever known. They're very ably led by General Tommy Franks and Secretary Rumsfeld. And so I have great confidence in the conduct of the military campaign. The really challenging part of it to some extent may come in the--in the aftermath once the military segment is over and we move to try and stand up a new government and--and turn over to the Iraqi people the responsibilities to their nation.

US, British and other coalition forces invaded Iraq March 20, and on May 1 the US declared an end to "major combat operations." At that time 139 US armed forces personnel had been killed. But 1773 more died after that, plus five civilian employees of the Defense Department, according to official Pentagon figures as of Sept. 26, 2005. By that measure the "aftermath" has been more than a dozen times deadlier to the US military than the initial combat phase.

"We know where [the WMDs] are."

The ad quotes Defense Secretary Rumsfeld as saying "We know where [the WMDs] are" on March 30, 2003 – at a time when US forces were within 65 miles of Baghdad.

This quote doesn't look much different even in full context. Rumsfeld was reacting to a question about why no weapons of mass destruction had been found, and he said US and coalition forces didn't yet control the areas where weapons "were dispersed."

Q: And is it curious to you that given how much control U.S. and coalition forces now have in the country, they haven't found any weapons of mass destruction?

Rumsfeld, May 30, 2003: Not at all. If you think -- let me take that, both pieces -- the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Subsequent events have proved Rumsfeld wrong. Whether his statement was a lie or a mistake depends on whether or not he knew at the time that the weapons weren't there.

"[Saddam] is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon."

This quote is from Condoleezza Rice on September 8, 2002, months before the war began, in an interview with CNN. Rice was then Bush's National Security Adviser and later became Secretary of State.

Q: Based on what you know right now, how close is Saddam Hussein's government -- how close is that government to developing a nuclear capability?

Rice, September 8, 2002: You will get different estimates about precisely how close he is. We do know that he is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. We do know that there have been shipments going into Iran, for instance -- into Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to -- high-quality aluminum tools that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs.

We know that he has the infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon. And we know that when the inspectors assessed this after the Gulf War, he was far, far closer to a crude nuclear device than anybody thought, maybe six months from a crude nuclear device.

The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

What Rice said then is an accurate summation of what the US Intelligence community was saying at the time. Here's what the bipartisan Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction said last March, after a year-long study:

Commission on Intelligence Capabilities, March 31, 2005: On the brink of war, and in front of the whole world, the United States government asserted that Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program, had biological weapons and mobile biological weapon production facilities, and had stockpiled and was producing chemical weapons. All of this was based on the assessments of the U.S. Intelligence Community. And not one bit of it could be confirmed when the war was over.

Looking back, it is now clear that much of what is quoted in this ad was, even in context, false or misleading. To say Bush and the others "lied," however, requires evidence that they knew the intelligence they were getting was wrong. The unanimous finding of the Intelligence Commission argues against that idea.

Sources

Interview of the President by TVP, Poland, Office of the White House Press Secretary, 29 May 2003.

Report to the President , Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, 31 March 2005.

Remarks by the President after meeting with Members of the Congressional Conference Committee on Energy Legislation, Office of the White House Press, Secretary 17 Sep 2003.

The 9/11 Commission Report, Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, 22 July 2004.

"Interview with Vice President Cheney," Meet the Press, NBC, 13 Mar 2003.

"OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF) U.S. CASUALTY STATUS"
AS OF: Sep 26, 2005, 1000 a.m. EDT, US Department of Defense, 26 Sep 2005.

“Donald Rumsfeld” This Week with George Stephanopoulos, ABC (Transcript) 30 Mar 2003.

"Interview with Condoleezza Rice," CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, 8 Sep 2002.

Related Articles

Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying

Two intelligence investigations show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said in his 2003 State of the Union Address.



TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: antiwar; bush; cheney; cindysheehan; iraq; left; moveon; rice; rumsfeld; terrorism; war; wmd

1 posted on 09/27/2005 11:24:14 AM PDT by Ooh-Ah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ooh-Ah

The left's opinions are based on emotion, and they need evil intentions in order to maintain that emotion. That is why they cannot simply say that the Iraq war was a mistake...there is no emotion or evil intentions in that...it must be a deliberate effort for some selfish gain on the part of the President and his cronies.

Interesting though, for people who do not believe in good and evil, they seem to find plenty of evil. What a bunch of wacky wacks...freakshow nutcases from hell.


2 posted on 09/27/2005 11:32:54 AM PDT by fizziwig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ooh-Ah

The group sponsoring this ad includes the National Council of Churches, which includes Presbyterin Church USA. My church is a part of PCUSA. It makes me sick. And yet the left is always ready to decry Bush for supposedly injecting religion into politics.


3 posted on 09/27/2005 11:38:31 AM PDT by Capt. Jake (Tar Heels against Edwards)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ooh-Ah

The Big Lie is that "Bush Lied".


4 posted on 09/27/2005 11:38:51 AM PDT by nuffsenuff (Don't get stuck on Stupid - General Russ Honore Sept 21, 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fizziwig

The left habitually lies, and so thinks everyone else does too...


5 posted on 09/27/2005 11:40:23 AM PDT by talleyman (Moose lips sink ships.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: talleyman
The left habitually lies, and so thinks everyone else does too...

LMAO

Clintoon was willing to say anything to anyone for political purposes knowing full well that the MSM would never challenge it.

It took a DNA test result to pry his lying fingerwaging lip curling mangy self off the BIG LIE that his entire Administration defended everyday.

6 posted on 09/27/2005 11:51:42 AM PDT by Mister Baredog ((Minuteman at heart, couch potato in reality))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mister Baredog

You would think that after all of Clintons lies the left would be able to tell a lie when they hear one, But they havent learned a thing.


7 posted on 09/27/2005 12:12:16 PM PDT by sgtbono2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ooh-Ah

Whenever I hear someone say that there were no WMD's, I ask them when they knew for sure that there were no weapons. They usually say something like, "I knew all along." So then, I point out that would require them to believe the word of Saddam Hussein over the words of Bill Clinton, Hans Blix, and virtually the entire intelligence network of the free world. Then I tell them, "I guess that tells me whose side you're really on."


8 posted on 09/27/2005 12:20:43 PM PDT by TravisBickle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ooh-Ah
An EXACT copy of THAT ad was taped up in my biology classroom;

But I tore it down....and as soon as I did, another student--Jamaican & Democrat--retrieved it and began a discussion upon it.

9 posted on 09/27/2005 12:27:29 PM PDT by ExcursionGuy84 ("Jesus, Your Love takes my breath away.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ooh-Ah

So did "Win Without Wars" bring the crappiest toy to show-and-tell or what?


10 posted on 09/27/2005 12:31:39 PM PDT by Niteranger68 ("Spare the rod, spoil the liberal.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ooh-Ah

There were weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq. The quantities were small, but that's one of the big threats from biological weapons. A small quantity can be grown into a large quantity rather quickly.

Stockpiles would be necessisary for it to be a threat in a military conflict, but our largest concern was that they might sell or provide such weapons to terrorists, and what we found was a serious threat in that context.

The media has not only ignored that fact, but done their best to burry it under loud accusations of lies.

The war to overthrow the Iraqi government was extremly quick and successful. What was not anticipated was the influx of the foreign insurgents from other countries and that they would get the support from Syria and Iran that they have received.

I guess our military and intelligence community felt that the Syrians and Iranians would be sufficiently cowed to keep out of the conflict. That proved to be untrue, and unfortunately we haven't had to political will to seriously threaten to use force against them for it. Iran and Syria are well aware of the danger of having Iraq become a successful democracy and their governments are fighting for their survival.

Maybe we should have expected that they would mount this level of resistence, but we didn't.

We were seen as liberators by the majority of the Iraqi people. As the insurgency has gone on, some people have tired of the conflict within their borders. However, their elected leaders have continued to welcome our presence there to help maintain order.

There is absolutely no evidence that the President lied. Their is ample evidence that these anti-war protestors lie to the public on a regular basis.

There was a time where such lies to deliberately damage the US and aid our enemies would have been punished as treason.


11 posted on 09/27/2005 12:36:04 PM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ooh-Ah
WRT there were no WMDs ...

I thought the final CIA report (appendix F I think) confirmed that they found 52 WMDs including the sarin gas one that actually exploded.

Of course, the MSM moved the goal posts and started talking about rthose being "old WMDs" or there were no "stockpiles" of WMDs.

Facts are this dictator ignored a large number of UN resolutions and something had to be done especially in light of the fact he was rejoicing and praising the terrorist strike on New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

12 posted on 09/27/2005 12:43:08 PM PDT by hawkaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ExcursionGuy84

***An EXACT copy of THAT ad was taped up in my biology classroom;***

You did right in tearing it down.


13 posted on 09/27/2005 1:03:33 PM PDT by kitkat ("We're not going to let anybody frighten us from our great love of freedom." GWB, 7/22/05))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ooh-Ah

Eating Thy Words
By Bob Parks | October 14, 2004


As usual, liberals believe the majority of the public (whom they educate) can't read and are thereby prone to their deception.

Now, of course the left is screaming that Bush deliberately deceived the American people while he contends he was given faulty intelligence. Unlike the Clinton Administration that was quick to blame any underling for a public gaffe (remember all those "bureaucratic snafus"?), Bush didn't distance himself from the many men and women who are crawling around with the roaches, putting their lives on the line to gather intel and blame them directly like his predecessor would've. That's called loyalty.

We may never know if it's true that the CIA, British, Israeli, Russian, and Egyptian Intelligence all got the weapons of mass destruction thing wrong. But before you blame President Bush for not getting it right, I'd like to remind you that he was in good company; company that got it wrong years ago...

On February 4, 1998, President Bill Clinton said, "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

Less than two weeks later, Clinton added, "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

If you haven't noticed, Clinton has steered clear of the whole WMD thing, because his assessments were, at the time, indisputable.

His mouthpieces began to chime in and added to the percept….

On February 18, 1998, Secretary of State Madeline Albright stated, "Iraq is a long way from here, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Madam Albright has been making negative comments about President Bush for years now, but fails to remember that she was confident in the intelligence she received at that time.

Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger has recently been more restrained, seeing how on February 18, 1998 he said, "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Democrat senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John F. Kerry, and others sent a letter to President Clinton on October 9, 1998 that read in part, "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

California Congresswoman, now House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi who has many times called into question the judgement of the President during this time of war, on December 16, 1998 said, "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Florida Democrat Senator Bob Graham and others sent a letter to President Bush on December 5, 2001 that in part read, "There is no doubt that. Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

On September 19, 2002, Michigan Senator Carl Levin said, "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

The same Al Gore who now calls President Bush a liar and an incompetent said on September 23, 2002, "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

Kerry campaign bigmouth and Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy on September 27, 2002 said, "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction."

Anti-war diatribe deliverer West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd on October 3, 2002 said, "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."

I guess the intelligence was okay two years ago….

Massachusetts Senator, veteran, and eventual Democrat nominee for President John Kerry on October 9, 2002 said, "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Liberal Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia on October 10, 2002 said, "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

Ultra-liberal California Congressman Henry Waxman on October 10, 2002 said of Saddam, "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."

Not to be left out, New York Senator Hillary Clinton on October 10, 2002 contributed, "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Imagine that; Senator Hillary unequivocally linked Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and al Qaeda. I believe President Bush made the same case….

Lastly on January 23 of last year, Senator John Kerry said, "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real...."

http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/parks/


14 posted on 09/27/2005 1:20:27 PM PDT by tsmith130
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #15 Removed by Moderator

To: Ooh-Ah

marking


16 posted on 09/27/2005 2:45:13 PM PDT by r-q-tek86 (Mind Like A Steel Trap - Rusty And Illegal In 37 States)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ooh-Ah

OPEN LETTER TO CINDY SHEEHAN (Must Read)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1491832/posts

Proof that hanoi kerry is behind baghdad sindee
by FReeper Mom of Two Soldiers

"OPEN LETTER TO CINDY SHEEHAN:
Residing in the same town as you once resided
and knowing your family,
I must ask you, "Whatever are you thinking? ..."

"...Cindy, you've changed since the Kerry campaign
contacted you in early July of last summer..."

"...Finally, and most disturbing,
how can you support a group that supported John Kerry,
who on April 7th, on National Public Radio
stated that Al Sadr had a "legitimate voice"
and that the Coalition (including your son)
should not have closed down his newspaper
after he called for the deaths of U.S. troops..."




So do the "Move On FReepers" who think we should ignore
hanoi kerry also think that baghdad sindee
should continue the attacks on the President and our Troops also?????


17 posted on 09/27/2005 3:32:06 PM PDT by 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub (Be wary of FReepers who preach and howl : Get over it Tonk. Move On! mmmm Move On as in Fat Boy?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ooh-Ah

Great!


18 posted on 09/27/2005 5:18:19 PM PDT by chaosagent (Remember, no matter how you slice it, forbidden fruit still tastes the sweetest!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kitkat

Thank-Ye kindly.


19 posted on 09/27/2005 5:35:57 PM PDT by ExcursionGuy84 ("Jesus, Your Love takes my breath away.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | 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