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

Skip to comments.

Did Liberals Lie About Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Post Chronicle ^ | September 6, 2006 | John W. Lillpop

Posted on 09/07/2006 7:31:46 AM PDT by yoe

As the war in Iraq becomes more unpopular with an increasing number of Americans, Democrats in collusion with the liberal mainstream media, continue to politicize the war by blatantly distorting the facts.

For example, a popular refrain is that President Bush lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in order to implement a grand strategy fashioned by neo-conservatives well before Bush actually took office. Said strategy was supposedly aimed at using military force to install democratic regimes friendly to the U.S. throughout the Middle East.

However, the left has never adequately answered the following question. If Bush knew there was no WMD, why would he send 150,000 troops into Iraq, since his "lie" would be immediately exposed by invading coalition forces and reported by a large contingent of media embedded within those forces?

Liberals also choose to ignore United Nations Resolution 144I, which clearly established that Iraq had WMD. That resolution was approved unanimously by the UN member nations.

Besides the illogic in claiming that President Bush lied about WMD, the liberal argument is discredited by comments by Democrats themselves in the years and months leading up to the 2003 invasion.

Herewith a substantial collection of quotes from "responsible professionals" about Saddam Hussein and WMD in Iraq:

Albright - Al Gore - Tom Harken - Arlen Spector - Barbara Boxer - Wesley Clark - Robert Byrd etc.

(Excerpt) Read more at postchronicle.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: clinton; coveringup; demlies; for; liberals; whileclintonslept; wmd
The Liberals don't want you to remember this!
1 posted on 09/07/2006 7:31:48 AM PDT by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: yoe

Nothing to see here. Move along.

-Leftists


2 posted on 09/07/2006 7:35:56 AM PDT by Tzimisce (How Would Mohammed Vote? Hillary for President! www.dndorks.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

Did Liberals Lie...

Yes


enuf said right there.


3 posted on 09/07/2006 7:38:58 AM PDT by edcoil (Reality doesn't say much - doesn't need too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe
Every time I run into a lib following this line of thought (the President lied, we should turn to the dems for salvation), I bring up the fact that a whole slough of lib politicians espoused much more dire warnings about Iraq than the administration ever did. Invariably, the reply is that the President lied to them, just as he had lied to the American public. I then follow up with the question that if the dems are so gullible that they can be fooled by the President's "obvious" lies, then why should I have faith in their ability to keep the country safe; after all, "we all know that Bush is a moron".

Needless to say, after the first encounter, most libs I know don't broach the subject with me anymore.
4 posted on 09/07/2006 7:39:26 AM PDT by Turbo Pig (...to close with and destroy the enemy...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

The libs try to use a little sleight-of-hand in their reasoning. They claim that George W. Bush said that there were WMD's in Iraq. Notwithstanding the fact that chemical weapons have been uncovered there, they parrot the following:

Bush said there were WMD's.
There were no WMD's.
Therefore, Bush lied.

The first sentence of their little syllogism is true, but it is not the whole truth. The libs' implication (and this is critical) is that Bush--and ONLY BUSH--said that there were WMD's.

For them to say that Bush and Clinton and Kennedy and Daschle and virtually everybody in the world said that there were WMD's makes their attack on Bush disintegrate. So they play their little word game, and the 49% of the American public too stupid to realize it, will continue to believe this lie. Goebbels would be proud.


5 posted on 09/07/2006 7:40:08 AM PDT by TruthShallSetYouFree (Abortion is to family planning what bankruptcy is to financial planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

Yes and they continue to lie everyday.


6 posted on 09/07/2006 7:40:28 AM PDT by bmwcyle (Only stupid people would vote for McCain, Warner, Hagle, Snowe, Graham, or any RINO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Turbo Pig
Invariably, the reply is that the President lied to them, just as he had lied to the American public.

Yeah, but Bush was only the Governor of Texas when all the dems were screaming about WMD's. Man, that Karl Rove must be really, really good!

7 posted on 09/07/2006 7:42:05 AM PDT by TruthShallSetYouFree (Abortion is to family planning what bankruptcy is to financial planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: yoe
How do you tell that a Liberal is lying?

His lips are moving.

8 posted on 09/07/2006 7:42:08 AM PDT by CholeraJoe (USAF Air Rescue "That others may live.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

bttt


9 posted on 09/07/2006 7:42:13 AM PDT by kayak (Praying for MozartLover's son, Jemian's son, all our military, and our President every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

bump


10 posted on 09/07/2006 7:42:51 AM PDT by God luvs America (When the silent majority speaks the earth trembles!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

Liberals are not interested in the truth. They just repeat the same bilge over and over again until if becomes reality.


11 posted on 09/07/2006 7:43:33 AM PDT by GianniV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

If Israel had been allowed to move into the Bekaa Valley, this whole debate would be moot.


12 posted on 09/07/2006 7:44:05 AM PDT by SlowBoat407 (I've had it with these &%#@* jihadis on these &%#@* planes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe
Do bears defacate in the woods?

Bio-Chemical Weapons & Saddam: A History.

13 posted on 09/07/2006 7:47:52 AM PDT by PsyOp (No reading is more necessary than that of Machiavelli…. - Clauswitz, On War, 1832.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe
Did Liberals Lie About Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Yes, in liberal amounts.

14 posted on 09/07/2006 7:49:48 AM PDT by afnamvet (It is what it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People

“So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"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." - Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998


15 posted on 09/07/2006 7:56:08 AM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

Finally .. somebody besides Rush and FR are publishing this info.


16 posted on 09/07/2006 8:25:44 AM PDT by The Final Harvest (Drive-By Media: Fake news, fake documents, fake polls)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

Talk to the Soldiers on the ground. I have a friend that was infected by an Iraqi Scud that had chemical weapons. His liver and spleen are shot, he lost part of one lung, and he has had 2 heart attacks...Your good ol MSM would never report this, but Hussein used WMD against our troops...All of these asses that deny that fact are borderline criminals.


17 posted on 09/07/2006 8:50:15 AM PDT by richardtavor (Pray for the peace of Jerusalem in the name of the G-d of Jacob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe
Only problem is:

There actually were WMD's, and plenty of evidence for such still in Iraq directly following the war.. ( Massive amounts of pesticides, the main ingredient in nerve gas..)
Additionally, there is evidence of WMD's moved to Syria just prior to and during the war..
Further, there is direct evidence through admission and the handing over of materials and personnel from Lybia.. ( These were NUCLEAR materials, research and scientists..{Iraqi nuclear scientists} doing weapons research and development..In Libya..)

You have all listened to the lie, repeated often, and now accept it as truth.. Lenin, Stalin and Marx would be proud..

18 posted on 09/07/2006 8:55:27 AM PDT by Drammach (Freedom... Not just a job, it's an adventure..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

Let's see now...

The DUmmies say that:

(1) GWB wanted to attack Iraq.

(2) To get support for that war, GWB decided to "trick" America into thinking Iraq was a danger, by claiming that Iraq had WMDs.

(3) That claim was a "lie", because GWB "knew" very well that there were no WMDs in Iraq.

(4) Therefore, GWB "knew" that his "lie" would be exposed unless there was a "cover-up".

(5) Therefore, as a "cover-up", GWB ordered the CIA to place vast stocks of WMDs in Iraq immediately after the collapse of Iraq's army.

(6) Therefore, when those vast stocks of WMDs were "found", GWB was hailed as the most far-seeing President that America has ever had.

(7) Therefore, GWB is so overwhelmingly popular now, that the Constitution is being amended to permit GWB to be elected to a THIRD Presidential term!


Oh? What's that? Vast stocks of WMDs were NOT "found"? GWB is NOT overwhelmingly popular?

How can that be?

SURELY...if GWB was clever enough to "trick" America into going to war, then GWB was clever enough to cover-up his "lie" about the WMDs.

Hmmm...

Is the absence of the "cover-up" PROOF of the absense of the "lie"?


19 posted on 09/07/2006 9:02:58 AM PDT by pfony1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

Has anyone ever seen a video clip of Bush saying we have to invade Iraq because they have WMD?

If there were such a clip, wouldn't the Kerry campaingn have played it ad nauseum in the last election?


20 posted on 09/07/2006 9:06:06 AM PDT by Ceebass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

Actually, the liberals believed that they could take the President down this path in collusion with the UN then use the no WMD against him in the 2004 election.

They failed and in the end WMD was found. Notice the left no longer is using Bush Lied Kids Died? They are now framing the war as a failure in terms of car bombings in baghdad.

This won't fly either.


21 posted on 09/07/2006 9:27:15 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Mediacrat - A leftwing editorialist who pretends to be an objective journalist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ceebass
Has anyone ever seen a video clip of Bush saying we have to invade Iraq because they have WMD?

Here's a clip (actually made post-invasion, not prior to, but he says it)...I do remember a campaign ad, too, but couldn't really be bothered to look that much.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=soohikNdbWs

Here's a good one chock full of liberals going back to the Clinton years saying he had WMDs, as well: http://youtube.com/watch?v=uVbu1zBid-o

22 posted on 09/07/2006 9:29:42 AM PDT by anthropos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: yoe

The demoncRATS have been trying to blame WMDs or lack thereof on Bush since he won in November 00. But they knew and evidence points to their knowledge.


23 posted on 09/07/2006 10:37:08 AM PDT by lilylangtree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #24 Removed by Moderator

To: yoe

Flashback! Letter To Clinton on Iraq from Kerry, Levin, Lautenberg, Dodd, Daschle, et al.
Public Domain - Letter to the President from the Senate | October 9, 1998 | Various Senators


Posted on 01/28/2004 5:41:58 PM EST by jmstein7


U.S. Senate



Committee on Armed Services,



Washington, DC, October 9, 1998.


The President,
The White House, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. President: We are writing to express our concern
over recent developments in Iraq.

Last February, the Senate was working on a resolution
supporting military action if diplomacy did not succeed in
convincing Saddam Hussein to comply with the United Nations
Security Council resolutions concerning the disclosure and
destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. This
effort was discontinued when the Iraqi government reaffirmed
its acceptance of all relevant Security Council resolutions
and reiterated its willingness to cooperate with the United
Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in a Memorandum of Understanding
signed by its Deputy Prime Minister and the United Nations
Secretary General.

Despite a brief interval of cooperation, however, Saddam
Hussein has failed to live up to his commitments. On August
5, Iraq suspended all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA,
except some limited monitoring activity.

As UNSCOM Executive Chairman Richard Butler told us in a
briefing for all Senators in March, the fundamental historic
reality is that Iraq has consistently sought to limit,
mitigate, reduce and, in some cases, defeat the Security
Council's resolutions by a variety of devices.

We were gratified by the Security Council's action in
unanimously passing Resolution 1194 on September 9. By
condemning Iraq's decision to suspend cooperation with UNSCOM
and the IAEA, by demanding that Iraq rescind that decision
and cooperate fully with UNSCOM and the IAEA, by deciding not
to conduct the sanctions' review scheduled for October 1998
and not to conduct any future such reviews until UNSCOM and
the IAEA, report that they are satisfied that they have been
able to exercise the full range of activities provided for in
their mandates, and by acting under Chapter VII of the United
Nations Charter, the Security Council has sent an unambiguous
message to Saddam Hussein.

We are skeptical, however, that Saddam Hussein will take
heed of this message even though it is from a unanimous
Security Council. Moreover, we are deeply concerned that
without the intrusive inspections and monitoring by UNSCOM
and the IAEA, Iraq will be able, over time, to reconstitute
its weapons of mass destruction programs.

In light of these developments, 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 Iraq
sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's
refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.


Sincrely,


Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick
Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay
Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V.
Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski.
Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K.
Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond,
Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, John F. Kerry, Chuck
Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.


25 posted on 09/07/2006 10:54:38 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

The Iraq Liberation Act

October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.

On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participa--tory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE,

October 31, 1998.

26 posted on 09/07/2006 10:56:54 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
H.R.4655
Title: To establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.
Sponsor: Rep Gilman, Benjamin A. [NY-20] (introduced 9/29/1998)      Cosponsors (1)
Related Bills: H.R.4664S.2525
Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 105-338 [GPO: Text, PDF]
MAJOR ACTIONS:

9/29/1998 Introduced/originated in House
10/5/1998 Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 360 - 38 (Roll No. 482).
10/7/1998 Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
10/31/1998 Signed by President.
10/31/1998 Became Public Law No: 105-338 [Text, PDF]

27 posted on 09/07/2006 10:59:06 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: anthropos

I cut and pasted those links and they don't work.


28 posted on 09/07/2006 8:52:31 PM PDT by perfect stranger (Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass). "Getting bombed has always struck me as the better option.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Thanks for that post Howlin. It's great to read those again.
29 posted on 09/07/2006 8:54:26 PM PDT by perfect stranger (Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass). "Getting bombed has always struck me as the better option.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: perfect stranger

Hmmm...odd. I just checked them again on my comp and they work...both take a bit to load, but they were working. I'll try to come up with another way to get there. Sorry about that.


30 posted on 09/07/2006 8:54:59 PM PDT by anthropos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

LIEBERALS


31 posted on 09/07/2006 8:57:10 PM PDT by Saint Louis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: yoe

Lying about lying about WMD is all they have.

Pray for W and Our Troops


32 posted on 09/07/2006 8:58:32 PM PDT by bray (Koffi 4 Food has Failed.......Again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anthropos
Nevermind.

They work fine if pasted into the address bar instead of the google toolbar.

33 posted on 09/07/2006 9:00:43 PM PDT by perfect stranger (Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass). "Getting bombed has always struck me as the better option.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: perfect stranger

Glad to oblige!


34 posted on 09/07/2006 9:00:52 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Turbo Pig
bring up the fact that a whole slough of lib politicians espoused much more dire warnings about Iraq than the administration ever did. Invariably, the reply is that the President lied to them, just as he had lied to the American public.

You might also point out that Clinton and his administration were also making these dire warnings several years even before Bush arrived in Washington.

They even passed a law -- The Iraq Liberation Act -- calling for "regime change" in 1998.

35 posted on 09/07/2006 9:04:29 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: yoe
Kerry says it was not because of "Weapons of Mass Destruction"

Click on Image to Watch 2 Mb .wmv Video of Kerry  saying the reason for invading Iraq was 'Not Weapons of Mass Destruction'
click the Image to watch the video

Transcript: (John Kerry on "Face the Nation" 9/15/02")

I would disagree with John McCain, that it's actual weapons of mass destruction that may be used against us, it's what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that uh, I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups and invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It's the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat.

(John Kerry on "Hardball 9/17/02")

But the President, as I also wrote in that article, always reserves the right to act unilaterally to protect the interest of our country.

If you have the bandwidth, here is the LINK to the better, longer and larger video. This is a 3:35 long, 4 Mb .wmv Video.

If you want the entire video, it is over 12 minutes long and is good quality, so it is 24.7 Mb in .wmv format. Click HERE. This is good stuff.

36 posted on 09/07/2006 9:06:08 PM PDT by DocRock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: perfect stranger

Cool...cause I'm lazy and probably wouldn't get around to it 'til tomorrow!


37 posted on 09/07/2006 9:06:30 PM PDT by anthropos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: anthropos
Maybe I should switch to the Altavista toolbar instead of the google.
38 posted on 09/07/2006 9:12:37 PM PDT by perfect stranger (Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass). "Getting bombed has always struck me as the better option.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: yoe

bttt


39 posted on 09/07/2006 10:26:36 PM PDT by Christian4Bush ("Ma'am, you don't have to thank us. You just go beat him for us." Soldier to Irey re: Murtha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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