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

Skip to comments.

Sandy Berger Defends Decision Not to Extradite Bin Laden
NewsMax.com ^ | 6/22/03 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

Posted on 06/22/2003 3:13:10 PM PDT by kattracks

Former national security advisor Sandy Berger admitted for the first time on Sunday that the Clinton administration rejected the possibility of prosecuting Osama bin Laden in the United States after the government of Sudan agreed to expel him in 1996.

Responding to ex-President Clinton's bombshell confession last year that he turned down a bid by Sudan for warmer relations that would have included the release bin Laden to the U.S., Berger confirmed to WABC Radio's Steve Malzberg, "We pushed the Sudanese government to break its links to terrorist groups, including bin Laden, [and to] expel them."

The former national security advisor also confirmed Mr. Clinton's revelation that after the Sudanese agreed to expel the terrorist kingpin, the administration tried to broker a deal for his extradition to Saudi Arabia. "We did - we went to the Saudis to see whether or not they would take bin Laden," Berger explained adding, "They said no. "

But while confirming that Sudan was willing to release bin Laden to Saudi Arabia, the former national security advisor sharply disputed his old boss' claim that Sudan was also willing to turn the terrorist mastermind over to the U.S.

"The Sudanese never offered to give him to the United States," he insisted. "This is something I've gone back to check very carefully on. There's no - there's no - no one knows of any such offer."

Berger suggested instead that the Sudanese had fabricated the story of bin Laden's possible extradition to the U.S. to stay on the Bush administration's good side after the 9/11 attacks.

But he couldn't explain why Mr. Clinton indicated last year that an offer for bin Laden's release to the U.S. was indeed made by Sudan.

"I've seen [Clinton's] quote," he told Malzberg. "And I think at the time there was some examination of whether or not he could be held here if, in fact, we had an opportunity to get him. And the judgment was that we didn't have any basis to hold him here at that time."

But Berger insisted that the Clinton administration's conclusion that it couldn't detain bin Laden "was not pursuant to an offer by the Sudanese. "

When asked why the Clinton administration didn't press Sudan to release bin Laden to the U.S. after Saudi Arabia rejected the offer, Berger grew defensive.

"The Sudanese . . . had no intention of turning bin Laden over to someone who would have been hostile, period," he insisted.

The full exchange between Berger and Malzberg went like this:

MALZBERG: Bill Clinton made an admission to the Long Island Association on February 15, 2002, while speaking on Long Island. And we have the tape, which is a little too hard to hear, so you over the phone might not be able to get the most out of it. But he admitted that the Sudan had offered to turn bin Laden over to the United States. And his comments were, quote:

"Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again.

"They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

"So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato . . ." [End of Malzberg's Clinton quote]

You, I believe, testified that we never had an opportunity to get bin Laden. Did we or didn't we?

BERGER: You're talking about the Sudanese. The Sudanese never made any offer to turn bin Laden over to us. Back in 1996, this is the time period your talking about, of course we knew less about bin Laden then we do, unfortunately today. But we still knew he was a bad guy. We still knew he was financing terrorists.

The Sudanese government itself was one of the principle state sponsors of terrorism. And we pushed the Sudanese government to break its links to terrorist groups, including bin Laden - expel them. We did - we went to the Saudis to see whether or not they would take bin Laden. They said no. But the Sudanese never offered to give him to the United States.

This is something I've gone back to check very carefully on. There's no - there's no - no one knows of any such offer. The Su - I'd be very careful before I'd believe the Sudanese, who've made this contention since 9/11, I think to try to make sure the Bush administration doesn't target them next.

Now, this is a government . . .

MALZBERG: Oh, they're terrible

BERGER: It's one of the worst state sponsors of terrorism in the world.

MALZBERG: And slavery, and murder. And now I'm disappointed in our State Department that they might take them off the list of terrorist nations. But so, Clinton himself said that he did not bring [bin Laden] here because we had no basis on which to hold him. That's a direct quote. And I promise you it is, because I have it . . .

BERGER: I've seen the quote, Steve. And I think . . .

MALZBERG: So, what's he talking about?

BERGER: . . . at the time there was some examination of whether or not he could be held here if, in fact, we had an opportunity to get him. And the judgment was that we didn't have any basis to hold him here at that time. But that was not pursuant to an offer by the Sudanese. It was our looking at what . . .

MALZBERG: But we could have asked them, though, right? If we knew that they were asking Saudi Arabia to take him . . .

BERGER: Well, we - we - we - we - the Sudanese had no intention of turning bin Laden, even after they expelled bin Laden, they continued to keep al Qaeda there. They continued to cooperate with al Qaeda. They had no intention of turning bin Laden over to someone who would have been hostile, period.

To listen to NewsMax.com's exclusive recording of ex-President Bill Clinton admitting he turned down Sudan's offer for bin Laden's release, Click Here.

To have Steve Malzberg's exclusive NewsMax.com column emailed directly to you, go to www.newsmax.com/malzberg.



TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 911; alqaeda; berger; binladen; clintonfailure; clintonlegacy; clintonscandals; extradition; how911happened; ijaz; nationalsecurity; osamabinladen; sandyberger; sudan; wtc

1 posted on 06/22/2003 3:13:11 PM PDT by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Clinton's line is that he was "obessed" about Bin-Laden.
2 posted on 06/22/2003 3:15:14 PM PDT by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
"Well, yes, both the President and I wanted to take the Sudanese up on their gracious offer but, we had to decline."

"You see, we had already taken very large amounts of cash from the Chinese and the Saudis for bin Laden's freedom and we both felt that, since we and the DNC would need a great deal more cash from the same sources, we needed to maintain our integrity. So we told the Sudanese 'No.'"

"And, events have certainly proven us and, especially, Presdient Clinton, to be absolutely correct. Both the Saudis and Chinese have provede a great deal more cash. The DNC and Senator Clinton are going to need it if we are to defeat the Republicans in 2008."

3 posted on 06/22/2003 3:25:14 PM PDT by Tacis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Interesting account of Clinton and bin Laden on the following website:

http://clintoncrimes.tripod.com/
4 posted on 06/22/2003 3:28:40 PM PDT by lilylangtree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks; All
Before you believe this drivel from Berger, you better read Monsoor Ijaz's interview with Rush Limbaugh. They turned down Usama 3 times. They didn't want a solution - they wanted an issue to exploit for their own purposes (keeping x42 girlies off the front page).

x42 allowed 3000 people to die so he could have his little girlies in the oval office (and everywhere else).
5 posted on 06/22/2003 3:43:29 PM PDT by CyberAnt ( America - You Are The Greatest!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks

In his opening pages, Patterson relates how Berger repeatedly tried calling Clintoon to capitalize on an opportunity to take out Bin Laden.

Clintoon dallied and dithered at a golf game, ignored Berger, and blew (no pun intended) the chance.

6 posted on 06/22/2003 3:44:24 PM PDT by martin_fierro (A v v n c v l v s M a x i m v s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt
Bill, Hillary Clinton, along with Sandy Berger are USA traitors and are directly responsible for allowing 911 to occur! Period! The American people better wise up and destroy the Democrat Party at the ballot box, because this slime of a party brought these American innocent murderers to the fore!
7 posted on 06/22/2003 3:47:58 PM PDT by JLAGRAYFOX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Sandy Berger Defends Decision Not to Extradite Bin Laden

Former national security advisor Sandy Berger admitted for the first time on Sunday that the Clinton administration rejected the possibility of prosecuting Osama bin Laden in the United States after the government of Sudan agreed to expel him in 1996.

Bill Clinton is indirectly responsible for September 11.

8 posted on 06/22/2003 3:49:53 PM PDT by Lazamataz (PROUDLY POSTING WITHOUT READING THE ARTICLE SINCE 1999!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Bill Clinton is indirectly responsible for September 11.

Dick Morris is more dogmatic in his opinion that Clinton is certainly culpible for 9-11. Morris doesn't give Clinton high marks. Morris's latest book skewers Clinton on his concern and treatment of terrorism.

How Clinton Left Ticking Terror Time Bombs For Bush To Discover


9 posted on 06/22/2003 3:58:12 PM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
His very name, Sandy Berger, makes me want to throw up. Though I guess it'd be worse if his parents had named him Harry.
10 posted on 06/22/2003 4:21:44 PM PDT by arasina (Did too! Did not! Did TOO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Berger was and is a puppet idiot.
You bring in an idiot to a job you know he is not up to then you tell him how to act and talk and what sides to take.
Berger was always in over his head. I wouldn't pay the man to feed my fish while on vacation, he'd screw up the job.
11 posted on 06/22/2003 4:22:11 PM PDT by Joe Boucher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arasina
Perry Mason's alter was Prosecutor, Hamilton Berger.

Years after the Raymond Burr Perry Mason left the air, it struck me: Hamilton Berger--Hamilton---Ham--Berger. Yes, weekly, Perry Mason dished up Ham Berger.
12 posted on 06/22/2003 4:25:19 PM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: All; kattracks; Carl/NewsMax; Joy Angela; conservogirl; Ragtime Cowgirl; Alamo-Girl; kristinn; ...
NEVER FORGET

...During my Judicial Watch Report Radio Show Call Saturday into HILLARY & CLINTON's own Former White House Political Advisor...

...DICK MORRIS confirmed for the 1st time anywhere that the CLINTONS had indeed refused 2-Free Offers from the President of the Sudan in 1996 to extradite OSAMA bin LADEN from the Sudan to the United States for a Trial that would have prevented the Attacks of September 11, 2001 on US.

...Both of the total 3-Offers' Broker, Terrorism Expert/FoX News Analyst MONSOOR IJAZ, and the Sudanese Ambassador to the U.S. at the time have confirmed these Sudanese Presidential Offers to the CLINTONS, the last Offer having come in the year 2000.

...Now WHY do you suppose the CLINTON Partners of Communist Dictator HO CHI MINH during the Vietnam War would do a thing like that against US..?


Signed:..ALOHA RONNIE Guyer / Vet-U.S. 7th Cavalry's Opening Days of the Vietnam War 1965-66

(Photos)
http://www.lzxray.com/guyer_collection.htm


NEVER FORGET
13 posted on 06/22/2003 4:26:09 PM PDT by ALOHA RONNIE (Vet-Battle of IA DRANG-1965 www.LZXRAY.comt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Burger is a high fat dunce.
14 posted on 06/22/2003 4:26:20 PM PDT by hgro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Boucher
The rapist's whole cabinet were idiots....they saw first hand the crimes and failed policy by the rapist, but no one stood up, no one called him on anything and no one resigned.
15 posted on 06/22/2003 4:28:48 PM PDT by mystery-ak (The War is not over for me until my hubby's boots hit U.S. soil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Only the New York Times and Al Hunt still consider Berger any sort of authority on defense.
16 posted on 06/22/2003 4:39:43 PM PDT by PianoMan (Liberate the Axis of Evil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: martin_fierro
"In his opening pages, Patterson relates how Berger repeatedly tried calling Clintoon to capitalize on an opportunity to take out Bin Laden.

Clintoon dallied and dithered at a golf game, ignored Berger, and blew (no pun intended) the chance."

Well, that should explain what the Clintoons would do if threatened by terrorists. Good book, by the way.

17 posted on 06/22/2003 4:42:53 PM PDT by freekitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: martin_fierro
Is that a golf tee or a joint?
18 posted on 06/22/2003 4:42:58 PM PDT by lowbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
Bergers Ching-gus Mingus.
19 posted on 06/22/2003 4:48:49 PM PDT by BIGZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: mystery-ak
The rapist's whole cabinet were idiots....they saw first hand the crimes and failed policy by the rapist, but no one stood up, no one called him on anything and no one resigned.

Yeh. Remember the day all the lemming in the Cabinet came out on the WH lawn to the news conference to announce that Clinton did not have sex with Lewinsky.

The trouble is, many of the Clintonlemmings are still following along without missing a beat.
20 posted on 06/22/2003 4:56:03 PM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
Yeah, in unison they all said *We believe him*...like I said, idiots all.
21 posted on 06/22/2003 5:02:10 PM PDT by mystery-ak (The War is not over for me until my hubby's boots hit U.S. soil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
But he couldn't explain why Mr. Clinton indicated last year that an offer for bin Laden's release to the U.S. was indeed made by Sudan.

These people lie so much, they cant keep their lies straight..

22 posted on 06/22/2003 5:04:26 PM PDT by cardinal4 (The Senate Armed Services Comm; the Chinese pipeline into US secrets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All; kattracks
NEVER FORGET


...Since the CLINTONS refused to protect US from OSAMA's Terrorist Attacks when they should have:


.."IS it SAFE?" = HILLARY on Senate Armed Services Committee..

(The Thread)
http://www.TheAlamoFILM.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=629


NEVER FORGET
23 posted on 06/22/2003 5:27:32 PM PDT by ALOHA RONNIE (Vet-Battle of IA DRANG-1965 www.LZXRAY.comt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Semper Paratus
"They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

1996, eh Burger? Mr. Ijaz would certainly disagree. It wasn't simply a matter of bin Laden being extradited in 1996. No. Mr. Ijaz tried to get bin Laden extradited numerous times, including as late as the year 2000. Once again, Berger hopes to win the argument by framing the argument so that it's favorable to him. From Mr. Ijaz himself...

"President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year."

"From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas."

"But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February 1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan's religious ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton; then again in April 1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan's intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI."

"And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies--an ally whose name I am not free to divulge--approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials."

And from The United States government and the FBI - just so you know what a liar Berger really is. To wit:

"In February 1998, Usama bin Laden and his close associate, Ayman al Zawahiri, endorsed a fatwa under the banner of the "International Islamic Front for Jihad on the Jews and Crusaders." This fatwa, published in the newspaper, Al-Quds Al-Arabi, on February 23, 1998, stated that Muslims should kill Americans - including civilians - anywhere in the world where they can be found."

May 1998 Fatwa

"On or about May 7, 1998, bin Laden associate Mohammed Atef sent Khaled al Fawwaz a letter discussing the endorsement by bin Laden of a fatwa issued by the "Ulema Union of Afghanistan" which termed the U.S. army the "enemies of Islam" and declared jihad against the U.S. and its followers. The fatwa was subsequently published in Al-Quds Al-Arabi."

Bin Laden Endorses the Nuclear Bomb of Islam

"On or about May 29, 1998, bin Laden issued a statement entitled "The Nuclear Bomb of Islam," under the banner of the "International Islamic Front for Fighting the Jews and Crusaders," in which he stated that "it is the duty of Muslims to prepare as much force as possible to terrorize the enemies of God."

24 posted on 06/22/2003 5:48:43 PM PDT by Reactionary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Reactionary
And here are a few choice gems from the liar and traitor, Berger.

"There's no - there's no - no one knows of any such offer."

No, Mr. Berger. There are plenty of people who know of such an offer.

"The Su - I'd be very careful before I'd believe the Sudanese, who've made this contention since 9/11, I think to try to make sure the Bush administration doesn't target them next."

Ah, yes, the Sudanese are saying this, eh? Again, the liar attempts to frame the argument. Mr. Ijaz and others are "saying this," Berger.

As far as the Sudanese "saying this" to save their skins because they're afraid of Bush? Even a bunch of slave traders and criminals evidently have more honesty than Berger and the Clinonista Cabal.

25 posted on 06/22/2003 5:53:17 PM PDT by Reactionary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Reactionary
1996, eh Burger?

Given Clinton's well known disinterest in national security issues my question is why would Clinton have an incomptent cipher like Berger as NSC advisor instead of somebody (even a partisan democrat) who at least could give Clinton a heads-up when he sees some excrement heading for the air conditioner.

26 posted on 06/22/2003 5:57:23 PM PDT by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
bump
27 posted on 06/22/2003 7:06:26 PM PDT by lowbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Semper Paratus
It wasn't incompetence. Clinton sold our nuclear arsenal to the Chinese for campaign cash. These people have never been on our side. What they want is the destruction of this country, nothing else.

I do not make the mistake of assigning good intentions to Clinton or those in his administration. They don't have good intentions, and the evidence to the contrary is too compelling.

28 posted on 06/22/2003 7:27:14 PM PDT by Reactionary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ALOHA RONNIE
Thanks for the heads up!
29 posted on 06/22/2003 7:29:06 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Semper Paratus
SANDY BERGER =

Chief D.C. Lobbyist...

for the Communist Chinese...

and the CLINTONS...

chose him anyway to "Protect" US =

September 11, 2001.
30 posted on 06/22/2003 7:45:02 PM PDT by ALOHA RONNIE (Vet-Battle of IA DRANG-1965 www.LZXRAY.comt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
fyi
31 posted on 06/22/2003 8:28:02 PM PDT by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JLO
Here's a DICK MORRIS Bump 4-U
32 posted on 06/22/2003 9:33:52 PM PDT by ALOHA RONNIE (Vet-Battle of IA DRANG-1965 www.LZXRAY.comt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: piasa
Somebody's lying; I thought Hillary said this never happened.
33 posted on 06/22/2003 10:23:56 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Semper Paratus
Q. Given Clinton's well known disinterest in national security issues my question is why would Clinton have an incomptent cipher like Berger as NSC advisor instead of somebody (even a partisan democrat) who at least could give Clinton a heads-up when he sees some excrement heading for the air conditioner.

A. Clinton's well known disinterest in national security issues.


34 posted on 06/23/2003 7:37:01 AM PDT by Valin (Humor is just another defense against the universe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Interesting.

Anybody have a link to Clinton's admission last year?
35 posted on 06/25/2003 12:19:39 PM PDT by rwfromkansas ("There is dust enough on some of your Bibles to write 'damnation' with your fingers." C.H. Spurgeon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
She said that in her book?

Wow........this is turning very interesting to see so many lies spun around.
36 posted on 06/25/2003 12:24:02 PM PDT by rwfromkansas ("There is dust enough on some of your Bibles to write 'damnation' with your fingers." C.H. Spurgeon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: kattracks


The New York Times: (212) 556-7652
The New York Post: (212) 930-8000

ABC: 212-456-7777
CBS: 212-975-4321
NBC: 212-664-4444
CNN: 404-237-0234
Fox:1-888-369-4762
NY York Daily News (212) 210-NEWS


37 posted on 07/20/2004 8:21:40 AM PDT by votelife (Calling abortion a women's issue is like calling war a men's issue!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: votelife

Bill O'Reily
E-mail: oreilly@foxnews.com

Sean Hannity
hannity@foxnews.com

Let's FREEP Alan Colmes while we're at it!
colmes@foxnews.com

Phylis Schlafly
eagle@eagleforum.org

Oliver North
http://www.northamerican.com/-cybercall/pg-call.htm

Janet Parshall, conservative talk show host
(703) 276-8597
Fax: (703) 516-7212
E-Mail us at: info@jpamerica.com

Brit Hume
Special Report with Brit Hume
Special@foxnews.com

Hugh Hewitt (conservative talk show host/columnist)
http://www.hughhewitt.com/

Michael Medved (conservative talk show host/columnist)
http://www.michaelmedved.com/contact.shtml


38 posted on 07/20/2004 9:51:04 AM PDT by votelife (Calling abortion a women's issue is like calling war a men's issue!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: votelife

Here's some key media to contact/freep:

I got these addresses from Media Research Center,

http://www.mediaresearch.org/MediaAddresses/mediaaddresses.asp#If%20the

Atlanta Journal-Constitution
e-mail: conedit@ajc.com

Houston Chronicle
e-mail: viewpoints@chron.com

Miami Herald
e-mail: HeraldEd@herald.com

The New York Times
letters@nytimes.com

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
e-mail: letters@post-gazette.com

USA Today
e-mail: editor@usatoday.com

The Wall Street Journal
e-mail: letter.editor@edit.wsj.com

The Washington Post
e-mail: Letterstoed@washpost.com

The Washington Times
e-mail: wtnews@wt.infi.net


39 posted on 07/20/2004 1:48:23 PM PDT by votelife (Calling abortion a women's issue is like calling war a men's issue!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants
40 posted on 07/20/2004 2:22:36 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ 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