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

Skip to comments.

Derailing the GOP Jihad (Washington Post)
Washington Post via Real Clear Politics ^ | Jan 19, 2014 | David Ignatius

Posted on 01/19/2014 6:32:34 AM PST by Innovative

Driving the Republican jihad was a claim, first reported in October 2012 by Fox News, that CIA personnel had wanted to respond more quickly to the Benghazi attack but were ordered to "stand down," perhaps by political higher-ups. Although this claim was promptly rebutted by CIA officials, it was repeated by Fox at least 85 times, according to a review by the liberal advocacy group Media Matters. This barrage fueled Republican charges that the Democrats were engaging in a cover-up.

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


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 113th; 2014election; 2016election; alqaeda; benghazi; benghazicoverup; benghazihearings; davidignatius; demagogicparty; election2014; election2016; enemywithin; hillary; hillaryclinton; hitlery; kenyanbornmuzzie; libya; mediamatters; memebuilding; newyork; newyorkcity; newyorkslimes; newyorktimes; obama; partisanmediashill; partisanmediashills; soshillary; terrorism; terrorists; washingtonpost
This must be the most shameful article written in recent history -- Americans died and unfortunately Republicans are the only ones who want answers and the Washington Post calls this a "jihad". It is beyond despicable.
1 posted on 01/19/2014 6:32:35 AM PST by Innovative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Innovative

The Left likes to control language and its meaning. Thus homosexual became gay. Liberal, which meant something different years ago, now is coopted, as is progressive. Jihad has a negative connotation so they’ve devalued it to use as a pejorative anti-Republican word. It also steals its real meaning and makes it impossible to describe a real jihadist with any sense of what that means. Now by using it thusly a jihadist will no longer be viewed as somebody who will kill innocent parade goers but it’s a man in a suit and tie who you don’t agree with.


2 posted on 01/19/2014 6:39:18 AM PST by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-senate-intelligence-report-takes-gop-tirades-about-benghazi-head-on/2014/01/17/3ec1b69c-7ef3-11e3-93c1-0e888170b723_story.html


3 posted on 01/19/2014 6:45:37 AM PST by savedbygrace (But God!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather

The news media has distorted the truth and twisted words and meanings for years. Few people in this country ever heard of a “jihad” until a few years before 9-11. Like the Clinton’s did back in their hay day, throw it against the wall enough times and sooner or later it will stick. Nothing has changed.


4 posted on 01/19/2014 6:47:03 AM PST by DaveA37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace

Thanks for posting the direct link to the article as published in the WP — they don’t have the “jihad” in the title, but it’s in the article exactly the same way:

“Driving the Republican jihad was a claim, first reported in October 2012 by Fox News, that CIA personnel had wanted to respond more quickly to the Benghazi attack “....


5 posted on 01/19/2014 6:48:00 AM PST by Innovative ("Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Innovative
This barrage fueled Republican charges that the Democrats were engaging in a cover-up.

An out and out lie. What fueled the Republican charge of cover up was watching the President of the United States and his Secretary of State trip over themselves to blame bizarrely an obscure video, while no member of the press corps even asked them where they had been during the fateful hours of the attack. This was on the heels of their glorifying their minute- to- minute control of the Osama bin Lasden raid.

6 posted on 01/19/2014 6:50:14 AM PST by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gusopol3

Instead of banning the use of the word “Redskins”, the LIBiots at the Washington Pest should ban the garbage wrap (aka Washington Post) from being distributed anywhere.


7 posted on 01/19/2014 6:54:23 AM PST by hal ogen (First Amendment or Reeducation Camp?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather
Shameful is the most charitable thing that can be said of this political boost to Hillary. Right down to using Media Matters, Hillarys creation, as the source for attacking FOX News. (What is new here?) This permanent talking head and sometime newsman has sped up the inevitable loss of all credibility at the once respected Washington Post.
8 posted on 01/19/2014 6:55:02 AM PST by billhilly (Has Pelosi read it yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Progov

“Like the Clinton’s did back in their hay day, throw it against the wall enough times and sooner or later it will stick.”

I know many otherwise intelligent people who parrot CNN or the Democratic party line with no regard to the countervailing and readily observable facts. Scary.


9 posted on 01/19/2014 6:55:07 AM PST by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

The Democrats control the senate and it is easy to ignore inconvenient facts. For instance. The 6th Fleet was monitoring the events in Benghazi from the beginning. The Commander had an intervention plan ready to execute within twenty minutes. He was ordered to stand down. Thus far that commander and other senior military have been silenced. The Democrat controlled Senate absolutely refused to investigate and was fully cooperating with the Obama administration to block meaningful inquiries.


10 posted on 01/19/2014 6:57:13 AM PST by allendale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Innovative
"Although this claim was promptly rebutted by CIA officials"

That should pretty well bring the controversy to an end.

Everyone knows that no government official would lie to cover up government misconduct.

Especially in the Obama era with "the most transparent administration" ever.

/s


11 posted on 01/19/2014 7:02:08 AM PST by Iron Munro (Orwell: There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allendale
The Democrat controlled Senate absolutely refused to investigate

And Boehner played right along by not appointing a select committee in the House.

12 posted on 01/19/2014 7:16:19 AM PST by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

Remember how the Leftist media eviscerated Mitt Romney for speaking about the massacre of our ambassador in Benghazi the morning after the attack? They screamed that he had no business commenting before The First Dictator had made a statement.

Of course, their hero was MIA, jetting off to Vegas to campaign, but Romney was supposed to shut up about the matter until Obumbles had time to think up a lie big enough to fit the occasion. So much for freedom of speech for anyone except the anointed ones on their side. They make a mockery of the Bill of Rights for everyone else.


13 posted on 01/19/2014 7:21:15 AM PST by txrefugee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

When the Muzzies take over, they will behead all of the MSM, and Dimocrats in Sodom on the Potomac. They will do it on the Washington Mall and leave the heads on the ground.


14 posted on 01/19/2014 7:22:25 AM PST by RetiredArmy (I am proud to be a Christian and follower of my Lord Jesus Christ. Time is short for U to know Him!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Innovative
" 'There were no U.S. military resources in position to intervene in short order in Benghazi,' the report says flatly."

Sigonella Naval Air Station is 470 miles from Bengazi. Maybe the media should realize that not everyone is as stupid as they would like us to be.

15 posted on 01/19/2014 7:22:28 AM PST by Sharkfish ( "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." -- Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Innovative
How can you possibly say that patriotic Americans who have fought and defended Americans from Muslim terrorists and have correctly questioned the lies the Obama Administration as involved in a jihad without losing all credibility before intelligent people?

Oh, what am I thinking, the is the Washington Post. Anyone who questions any of the lies of the Obama Administration is either an Islamaphobe, a jihadist or both. There is no longer any honest or intelligent public debate in Washington. It is only name calling and lies.

16 posted on 01/19/2014 7:24:26 AM PST by detective
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

“...s claim was promptly rebutted by CIA officials”

Well then, of course it must be false! What a laugh.

CIA and NSA have paraded people in front of congress to lie.


17 posted on 01/19/2014 7:32:56 AM PST by School of Rational Thought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace

I went to your link. The comment section is hilarious!


18 posted on 01/19/2014 7:34:51 AM PST by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra

sclemens
• an hour ago

Were there requests for more security - yes
Were these requests ignored - yes
Was the White House informed of the attack in sufficient time to send help - yes
Did they send it - No
Did people die - yes
Was there a lame story created to misdirect blame - yes
Was this story orchestrated at the highest levels - yes
Has the most transparent administration been forthcoming is access to Benghazi personnel - NO

This is evidence of malfeasance and incompetence of the highest order. But not for the press, evidently.


19 posted on 01/19/2014 7:40:11 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Innovative
David Ignasius has two jobs. He is a novelist writing numerous novels and a "journalist" working for the WP.

Apparently he has a hard time doing both jobs and separating fact from fiction.

20 posted on 01/19/2014 7:41:57 AM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gusopol3

You are correct. Boehner will never be confused with Peter Rodino.


21 posted on 01/19/2014 7:48:21 AM PST by allendale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

Simple question: Where was the little islamist?


22 posted on 01/19/2014 7:51:55 AM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

IIRC, a general testified under oath that the order was to “Stand By” (resulting in no rescue mission, when they had stood by until everything was over). So Fox News and GOP use of the words “Stand Down” (resulting in no rescue mission) is unmitigated evil. The WP wants you to know that this choice of words renders the GOP into “jihadis”. The Islamist terrorists who attacked the mission, on the other hand, were really just film critics. The organized coverup campaign of “film” lies orchestrated by Obama, Hillary, Susan Rice, et al., and their gross dereliction of duty that let the attack succeed — well, it’s not like they closed a traffic lane or something.


23 posted on 01/19/2014 8:17:35 AM PST by Chewbarkah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy

I wonder if the muzzies are familiar with the expression, “if we invade America, there will be a rifle behind every blade of grass”?

BTW, thank you for your service. In fact, here’s a thought I would like for you to consider, it came to me yesterday:

Remember during the Cold War how many liberals were soft on communism? Nowadays, progressives are soft on Islam & routinely demand that we “not judge an entire religion by the actions of a few nuts”.

They would never show this kind of solicitude about Christianity. Nor would the gungrabbers among them “not judge all gun owners by the actions of a few nuts”.

Liberals once soft on communism, now soft on Islam. For the same reason, with the same instinctual hatred for America and our founding values. Make sense?


24 posted on 01/19/2014 9:00:28 AM PST by elcid1970 ("In the modern world, Muslims are living fossils.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

obama is king jihadist... you morons at the compost really need help.


25 posted on 01/19/2014 9:29:01 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS! BETTER DEAD THAN RED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra

All that I see in the compost comments are insane idiots that are going to cause this republic to split.


26 posted on 01/19/2014 9:33:39 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS! BETTER DEAD THAN RED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy
When the Muzzies take over, they will behead all of the MSM, and Dimocrats in Sodom on the Potomac. They will do it on the Washington Mall and leave the heads on the ground.

Let's wait a little while before we counter-attack.

27 posted on 01/19/2014 9:58:19 AM PST by Partisan Gunslinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: elcid1970
Liberals once soft on communism, now soft on Islam. For the same reason, with the same instinctual hatred for America and our founding values. Make sense?

"And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself: how then shall his kingdom stand?"

28 posted on 01/19/2014 11:23:35 AM PST by Oratam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Sharkfish; Innovative; MestaMachine; Republicanprofessor
Maybe the media should realize that not everyone is as stupid as they would like us to be.

David Ignatius has always been a shill for the "progressives". This is what he wrote a few days after the Banghazi murders:

CIA documents supported Susan Rice’s description of Benghazi attacks

Read it all and don't miss this:

The analysts seem confident that al-Qaeda’s new leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, played no direct role in the Benghazi events, even though he called on Sept. 10 for revenge attacks against the United States. “He’s not a manager, he’s not a planner, he’s not an operator. He’s a theologian, and that doesn’t have much resonance now. He’s almost irrelevant, he’s so concerned about his security, so hunkered down,” said the senior official.

What Ignatius did not write was that the Zawahiri's video called for attacks on Americans in Libya as noted by both CNN:

On September 10 -- at least 18 hours before the attack -- al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, in a video timed for the anniversary of 9/11, called for attacks on Americans in Libya to avenge the death of al-Libi.

and Reuters. (The post contains the direct link to Reuters.)

So here we have a little down-loaded video clip (though quoted on Egyptian television 9/9/12) and another video demnding "direct action" against Americans in Libya by a senior al-Qaida operative. Difficult chioce, but the "senior CIA analyst" and Ignatius immediately come down on the side of the Muhammed video. Of course!

There just are too many trees to see the forrest, aren't there?

Personally, I'm of the opinion that if there really was a real "CIA analyst" whowas interviewed by Ignatius that analysis was a case of self-serving CYA. And a journalist who had had another agenda than protecting the adminstration would have seen that.

29 posted on 01/19/2014 11:43:47 AM PST by ScaniaBoy (Part of the Right Wing Research & Attack Machine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ScaniaBoy; onyx

Placemark, thank you very much, ScaniaBoy!


30 posted on 01/19/2014 11:56:48 AM PST by onyx (Please Support Free Republic - Donate Monthly! If you want on Sarah Palin's Ping List, Let Me know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace

It’s hard to tell from this article who the quotes are attributable to.


31 posted on 01/19/2014 12:10:38 PM PST by Excellence (All your database are belong to us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Innovative
Driving the Republican jihad was a claim, first reported in October 2012 by Fox News, that CIA personnel had wanted to respond more quickly to the Benghazi attack but were ordered to "stand down," perhaps by political higher-ups. Although this claim was promptly rebutted by CIA officials

This is the new double speak. Levy a charge and the administration will promptly rebuff it. End of story. Must be false. Nevermind that it is the CIA rebutting the charges against the CIA.

I saw the same thing on CNN the other day. While someone was being torn up over handgun rights, he refer to an article published by his organization that support his position. Therefore he was right. The lady he was debating scoffed at his "source". Later the "independent" journalist came on and claim the guy who wanted to curb hand guns was correct and the other had her fact wrong. The reasoning was because he accurately cited his "source". Nevermind his source was the organization that he was head of.

32 posted on 01/19/2014 12:44:37 PM PST by HarleyD (...one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Excellence

Yeah. Here’s one from the report:

“The committee has reviewed the allegations that U.S. personnel prevented the mounting of any military relief effort during the attacks, but the Committee has not found any of these allegations to be substantiated.”

Considering that NO military relief effort was actually started or completed, I would say the report fails to prove that statement.


33 posted on 01/19/2014 1:57:05 PM PST by savedbygrace (But God!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Partisan Gunslinger

When Christ comes for His church, I will be gone with those that are going. THEN the muzzies and the antichrist will take over. THAT is when all hell will break loose and all that will happen. I happen to believe that He is coming for His church and I am a blood bought Christian, thus I will go right along with all the other Believers and meet Him in the air.


34 posted on 01/19/2014 5:15:38 PM PST by RetiredArmy (I am proud to be a Christian and follower of my Lord Jesus Christ. Time is short for U to know Him!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy
When Christ comes for His church, I will be gone with those that are going. THEN the muzzies and the antichrist will take over. THAT is when all hell will break loose and all that will happen. I happen to believe that He is coming for His church and I am a blood bought Christian, thus I will go right along with all the other Believers and meet Him in the air.

Be careful. When antiChrist comes, he's going to be pretending he's Jesus, so watch out for the first entity that comes and says that he is going to take you away.

I want to stay here during the reign of antiChrist, broadcasting against him after going to our place mentioned in Revelation 12, or testifying against him in his own court.

35 posted on 01/20/2014 1:35:41 PM PST by Partisan Gunslinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Partisan Gunslinger

Sorry friend. I will not be here to see who the antichrist is. The church will be raptured before he is revealed. So, don’t care who he is, I won’t be here to see him. No one who accepts Christ will be.


36 posted on 01/20/2014 2:03:06 PM PST by RetiredArmy (I am proud to be a Christian and follower of my Lord Jesus Christ. Time is short for U to know Him!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy
Sorry friend. I will not be here to see who the antichrist is. The church will be raptured before he is revealed. So, don’t care who he is, I won’t be here to see him. No one who accepts Christ will be.

We'll see.

37 posted on 01/20/2014 3:26:10 PM PST by Partisan Gunslinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Partisan Gunslinger

You might. I won’t. If you are here looking for the antichrist, that is a grave problem for you. Myself, I am looking for Jesus Christ. I won’t see because I won’t be here. End of story and I am finished with the argument.


38 posted on 01/21/2014 5:52:12 AM PST by RetiredArmy (I am proud to be a Christian and follower of my Lord Jesus Christ. Time is short for U to know Him!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy
You might. I won’t. If you are here looking for the antichrist, that is a grave problem for you. Myself, I am looking for Jesus Christ. I won’t see because I won’t be here. End of story and I am finished with the argument.

What argument? We will all see the antiChrist. I want to be one of the 7000 that stand against him.

39 posted on 01/22/2014 1:28:02 PM PST by Partisan Gunslinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Partisan Gunslinger

IF you are a Christian, a true Believer in Jesus Christ, YOU will not see the antichrist. You will be gone in the Rapture. Simple as that. Read 1 Cor 15 and 1 Thes 4. You say 7,000. Are you speaking a Jewish person? If you are a Jewish person and think you will be standing against him, you might want to rethink that. NOTHING guarantees YOU will survive the years of the Trib. Thus, if you are Jewish my friend, I will say to you to seek your true Messiah, our LORD Jesus Christ. Yeshua to you my friend.


40 posted on 01/22/2014 5:00:15 PM PST by RetiredArmy (I am proud to be a Christian and follower of my Lord Jesus Christ. Time is short for U to know Him!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy
IF you are a Christian, a true Believer in Jesus Christ, YOU will not see the antichrist. You will be gone in the Rapture.

Most of the disciples died horrible deaths, why would we be so special that God would make sure we wouldn't even have to be in the sights of the antiChrist, let alone die a death comparable to the way some of the disciples went out? We're not going to die horrible deaths in all likelihood, but we will be ridiculed and oppressed for a little while.

Simple as that. Read 1 Cor 15 and 1 Thes 4.

When we meet in the clouds (the "clouds" are people, the air is the "spirit", therefore we meet all at once all together, in spiritual bodies), that will be at the seventh trump. The antiChrist comes in the sixth trump.

You say 7,000. Are you speaking a Jewish person?

No, I hope I'm one of the very elect. There will only be 7000 of us that won't worship Satan. The rest of the world will. Jews, Muslims, Protestants, Catholics, and all the rest will all fall for him, except for 7000.

If you are a Jewish person and think you will be standing against him, you might want to rethink that. NOTHING guarantees YOU will survive the years of the Trib. Thus, if you are Jewish my friend, I will say to you to seek your true Messiah, our LORD Jesus Christ. Yeshua to you my friend.

Jesus is my Messiah and I do not fear or revere those that can kill my flesh body, but revere He who can kill my soul.

41 posted on 01/23/2014 2:05:22 PM PST by Partisan Gunslinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Innovative
Rebuttal here.
42 posted on 01/23/2014 2:19:31 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Partisan Gunslinger

So you think that you are hoping that you will be a special one of the so called 7,000. There is absolute NOTHING in scripture that supports that so called theory. I am not going to argue the point with you. I believe in the Pre Tribulation Rapture of the Church and that is what it says in 1 Corth 15 and 1 Thess 4. You believe what you might and I will believe what I might. I don’t believe this hocus pocus that the cults believe in. So, kindly take your ball and go home because this is my final response to you.


43 posted on 01/23/2014 4:52:11 PM PST by RetiredArmy (I am proud to be a Christian and follower of my Lord Jesus Christ. Time is short for U to know Him!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy
So you think that you are hoping that you will be a special one of the so called 7,000. There is absolute NOTHING in scripture that supports that so called theory. I am not going to argue the point with you. I believe in the Pre Tribulation Rapture of the Church and that is what it says in 1 Corth 15 and 1 Thess 4. You believe what you might and I will believe what I might. I don’t believe this hocus pocus that the cults believe in. So, kindly take your ball and go home because this is my final response to you.

The rapture theory didn't exist until the 1800s, so if I were you I'd be careful of accusing others of following "cults"

44 posted on 01/24/2014 3:22:23 PM PST by Partisan Gunslinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Partisan Gunslinger

What you are boasting is not supported by Scripture. You cannot take just one line of scripture and write a complete belief system off one line. You have to read all lines before and after that particular line. Taking one line and writing a complete belief system in that one line is cultist. You believe what you might friend and I will believe what the BIBLE TELLS ME. In full. Not in one line of scripture to write a complete belief system.


45 posted on 01/25/2014 7:47:30 AM PST by RetiredArmy (I am proud to be a Christian and follower of my Lord Jesus Christ. Time is short for U to know Him!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy
What you are boasting is not supported by Scripture. You cannot take just one line of scripture and write a complete belief system off one line. You have to read all lines before and after that particular line. Taking one line and writing a complete belief system in that one line is cultist.

Like saying you're going to be gone in a rapture due to two lines that you didn't even translate correctly?

You believe what you might friend and I will believe what the BIBLE TELLS ME. In full. Not in one line of scripture to write a complete belief system.

It's not just one line.

46 posted on 01/25/2014 8:58:16 AM PST by Partisan Gunslinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Partisan Gunslinger

Your boring with your same old chatter Omar. Go back to the swamp.


47 posted on 01/25/2014 12:15:05 PM PST by RetiredArmy (I am proud to be a Christian and follower of my Lord Jesus Christ. Time is short for U to know Him!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy

Yep, my 2500 year old chatter.


48 posted on 01/25/2014 1:32:49 PM PST by Partisan Gunslinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | 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