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

Skip to comments.

TRANSCRIPT: Moyers hosts RON PAUL (R, Tx) on PBS's "NOW"
"NOW" (PBS) ^ | 10/04/02 | Ron Paul | Bill Moyers

Posted on 10/04/2002 8:37:02 PM PDT by Askel5

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-89 last
To: rb22982
Well, the Soviets are also somewhat rational, the radical Islams have shown time and time again they aren't.

The rational Soviets of whom you speak asserted absolutely that "the revolution makes no sense without terror".

I spent yesterday reading Claire Sterling's "THE TERROR NETWORK" from 1980. Sterling appears to have been somewhat the liberal and obviously would have liked to restrict her treatment of terrorism to the old guard far right terrorists (like those who, along with the Soviets, helped terrorize the state of Israel into being). Instead, she focuses plainly on the real scourge: Soviet-sponsored terrorists.

Which groups included ABSOLUTELY the Arabs ... from well into the first half of the 20th century.

Judging by the flyleaf, this book was roundly applauded by the right when it came out. The research is impeccable. The conclusions are sound and the facts are plain: Soviets sponsored the bulk of global terror and the purpose of terror was to terrorize ... causing government to end up draconian entities actually ripe for being overthrown.

Makes sense. This was precisely the intent of the terror instigated by the Narodnaya Volya or "People's Will" who birthed the Bolsheviks:


It should be noted that not only did the terror campaign demystify Russian rulers in the eyes of the people but it also caused the Government to overreact.

From 1879 onwards, the Imperial Government introduced a stream of extremely harsh counter measures meant to prevent terror, but which had the effect of alienating moderate groups in Russia.

In the long run this made it impossible for the regime to ever secure the support of moderately conservative and liberal elements in Russian society; so it was left to fall, isolated and alone, in 1917.

--- Richard Pipes


[Disclaimer: I'm no more a Pipes fan than a Moyer's fan but his facts as contained in this piece are incontrovertible.]

This has been the model of leftist terror for nearly four decades now ... "liberation" on a scale and with such bloodshed that governments overreacted and the desired revolution and toppling of legitimate governments was effected.

If we know this to be true, I think it behooves us to proceed with absolute caution and in perfect comport with those founding principles which distinguish our nation from all others.

Summary execution -- at home and abroad -- of anyone the Administration deems a terrorist does not appear to fit that bill.

Another quote from the current issue of Arab-Asian Affairs:


Shortly after 9/11, George Bush Sr. was reported to have ruminated in public that a "prohibition" on CIA assassinations should be removed since it tied the United States' hand in the face of its enemies. In August 2002, ABC News briefly posted a news report, attributed to Reuters, that the White House had announced with zero fanfare that, with immediate effect, certain individual whom President Bush or other high-level members of his Administration have designed as terrorists, are subject to summary execution by Homeland Security operatives, US Intelligence officers, or in some cases, by US military personnel.

The Presidential Directive applied to both US and foreign citizens, both within and outside the United States.

The announcement was made as silently as possible -- late one Sunday evening, from the President's Texas home, in Crawford. Citing security considerations, top Bush Administration officials afterwards declined to comment on the new Directive. No subsequent references to this contneitous decision have been made or are likely.


Frankly, I was surprised to read this when my issue arrived last week. I had missed this somehow. Searching on the internet, I found a copy of the original Reuters story but very little in the way of discussion.


Bush OK's Summary Executions Of Some Designated As Terrorists 
8-12-2002 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a surprise move sure to raise 
outcries from foreign governments, civil liberties 
groups and others, The White House today announced with 
little fanfare that effective immediately, certain 
individuals whom President Bush or other high-level 
Administration members have designated as terrorists 
are subject to summary execution by either Homeland 
Security operatives, U.S. intelligence operatives, 
and in some cases by U.S. military personnel. 

The presidential directive applies to both U.S. and foreign 
citizens, both within and outside the United States territory. 

The White House gave notice of the new policy in as quiet a 
way as possible, making the announcement late Sunday 
evening from Crawford, Texas. The unprecedented move is 
thought certain to generate a firestorm of protest from 
numerous quarters. 
It's possible I missed the discussion somehow on FR but searches of "execution", "Bush / execution | summary | terror" brought up nothing on the story.

Having subscribed to a couple of Story's publications for several years now, I know for a fact he edits meticulously and will even reissued an entire mailing for a minor mis-cite in one issue. A most trustworthy source.

So ... if anyone can dispute Story's account or the Reuters story as posted here (taken from a chat room dated that day with a comment "Does anyone have a problem with this?"), I would sure like to see it.

I know there was lots of talk about and support for taking a page from Israel where the ready assassination of terrorists was concerned but I hadn't realized there had been a presidential directive in this regard.

As much as I too would sorta like the freedom to act thus, I'd always been somewhat proud that it was not our national policy to do ... regardless that it's probably true it was a "hypocrisy is the compliment paid to virtue" sort of thing.

51 posted on 10/04/2002 11:29:53 PM PDT by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Forgiven_Sinner
We need consistency in our goal, although the method can and should vary depending upon the circumstances.

I am not a moral relativist.

Nor am I a Calvinist (or one of their pragmatic progeny) who believe that the ends justify the means.

I believe actions have consequences and the unleashing of evil actions will have consequences that cannot be accounted for in advance by Good Intentions or the Best-Laid Plans.

52 posted on 10/04/2002 11:32:25 PM PDT by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: nunya bidness
[Disclaimer: I'm no more a Pipes fan than a Moyer's fan but his facts as contained in this piece are incontrovertible.]

I believe I'm mistaken here ... I think it's Daniel Pipes I have a problem with.

(Better to err on the side of the disclaimer, however, as bad at names as I am ... )

53 posted on 10/04/2002 11:45:48 PM PDT by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
bump for the Brave
54 posted on 10/04/2002 11:46:41 PM PDT by Int
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
We need consistency in our goal, although the method can and should vary depending upon the circumstances.

I am not a moral relativist.

Nor am I.

Nor am I a Calvinist (or one of their pragmatic progeny) who believe that the ends justify the means.

Nor am I, nor do I.

I believe actions have consequences and the unleashing of evil actions will have consequences that cannot be accounted for in advance by Good Intentions or the Best-Laid Plans.

I agree. I'm not quite seeing how your points above relate to my comments or the war on terrorism. Do you NOT want to defeat those who attacked our nation on 9/11? Do you think some of the means President Bush has selected to fight the war on terror are wrong? Please be clearer.

55 posted on 10/04/2002 11:48:21 PM PDT by Forgiven_Sinner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
In the current issue of Arab-Asian Affairs ...

I had to cancel my subscription because the paperboy kept throwing it in the bushes.

Kidding aside. You rock.

56 posted on 10/04/2002 11:49:28 PM PDT by nunya bidness
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
I think it's Daniel Pipes I have a problem with.

Of course you do - he has eloquently pointed out how the worship of Satan Allah will destroy the West. First on their list? Catholics.

It's gonna be fun watching you wimps get exterminated. My kind fights back.

57 posted on 10/04/2002 11:52:58 PM PDT by Senator Pardek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Senator Pardek
It's gonna be fun watching you wimps get exterminated. My kind fights back.

Drunks? If you're not with us your [hic] agin us. Would you like to be on our mailing list?

You bastard. I love you man...

Where's my keys?

58 posted on 10/04/2002 11:57:01 PM PDT by nunya bidness
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Forgiven_Sinner
I agree. I'm not quite seeing how your points above relate to my comments or the war on terrorism. Do you NOT want to defeat those who attacked our nation on 9/11?

You're damn right I do.

I prefer to do it on our terms, not theirs.

I refuse to "stoop to conquer" by adopting the immoral means and premises of our enemies. If we ourselves abandon the self-evident truths of our Declaration, the clear framework of our Constitution (by which our Constitutional Republic was intended to operate) or the Judeo-Christian heritage from which we derive our concept of a Just War, we have no business seeking to "nation-build" in our image for the just and moral nation for which so many Americans have died to preserve for our progeny will no longer exist.

This is precisely the predicament Ron Paul is addressing with our newly-minted "preemptive strike" policy. If the United States is staking that as a "moral" policy, on what grounds will we protest another sovereign nation's invoking it?

59 posted on 10/04/2002 11:58:32 PM PDT by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: nunya bidness
Har! Wrap your man hooks around my hairy mole-filled backed, you bastard!
60 posted on 10/05/2002 12:01:05 AM PDT by Senator Pardek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: nunya bidness
"hairy mole-filled backed"

I must be Irish!

61 posted on 10/05/2002 12:03:22 AM PDT by Senator Pardek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Senator Pardek
You are so a Macuser.
62 posted on 10/05/2002 12:04:35 AM PDT by nunya bidness
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Forgiven_Sinner
Do you think some of the means President Bush has selected to fight the war on terror are wrong?

Yes ... as elucidated above.

Additionally, I believe the harping on the need to "nation-build" or liberate the Iraqis (as we liberated the Serbians) from their dictator all are indications that we are padding our case for war with elements absolutely outside the parameters of a Just War.

Finally, assuming we did invade Iraq on the basis of his being a dictator or engaging in the production of WMD, do we then have the backbone to pursue those who supported, sustained and supplied him with the cash, armaments, military advisors and bioweapons expertise that made him the threat he is?

Do we confront Russia?

Do we hold Russia accountable for their support of Saddam in the last war we now seek to "finish"?

It would seem unfair and inconsistent not to go to the source of Saddam's ability to threaten us.

63 posted on 10/05/2002 12:05:39 AM PDT by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
Gutless - but I expect that from the cult of "turn the other cheek".
64 posted on 10/05/2002 12:11:15 AM PDT by Senator Pardek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign
You know as well as I do that Iraq poses a clear and CONSTANT direct danger to Israel. MOST of the Arab/Muslim states do. I can't think of anyone better suited to take down Saddam or anyone having more justification. WE, on the other hand, appear to be more bent on "Nation Building," or empire building, to the detriment of our direct war on terrorists. Therein lies the difference. I tend to very much agree with Dr. Paul on this.

IF (and given the hysteria right now, it's a BIG IF) there is full and reasoned debate on the subject and the motivations are correct and precedent is not established, then I would have little or no heartburn about taking Saddam Insane down. BUT NOT UNTIL THEN. Right now, though, Congress seems to want to give Dubya ITS powers to declare war. That is wrong and ill-thought out.
65 posted on 10/05/2002 12:12:19 AM PDT by dcwusmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
PAUL: No, I see nothing imminent. He doesn't have an air force. He doesn't have a navy. He can't even shoot down … he didn't shoot one of our airplanes down in twelve years … and his army is 1/3 of what it was twelve years ago. So, you know, this fictions that he's Hitler and that he's about to take over the Middle East … I think it's a stretch.

Paul is talking convention warfare and Bus has stated several times that we are fighting a new and different kind of war. Does Paul have Attention Deficit Disorder?

66 posted on 10/05/2002 12:13:53 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Senator Pardek
Hell hath no fury like a RIGHTEOUS Christian Soldier, Pardek.

Without a doubt, four decades of gramscian-marxist revolution has rendered many Christians a bunch of "peace and social justice" pansies who faint at the mere mention of any but the honeyed passages of Scripture (suitable for use to sweeten the sting of "Humanitarian" research on excess, already-been-killed human lives).

I simply have too much respect for my father and others in the military around whom I was reared to believe that politicians should be sending them into war based on "feelings" or some kind of nationalistics "social work" where we jump around the planet deciding which nations we'll Fix based on what Ziggy B believes is the pragmatic cluster of Self-Interest necessary to catalyze our "morality" in some areas but not others.

To wit ... Clinton's rushing into Serbia on the basis of as-yet unproven genocide while ignoring entirely the bodies that floated out of Rwanda like logs. A badass troop of boy scouts could have taken on the machete wielding savages killing thousands. I fail to see how we managed to pull out of a nation where desperate folks were BEGGING the UN Belgians to please kill them with machine guns knowing the certain horror and diabolically primitive deaths that awaited them.

Again, it's a matter of Consistency. If we are going to play the Self-Interest card ... by all means, let's play it and make no bones about it.

I see no reason to dress it up in terms of "moral" purpose ... particularly given the means we seek to employ in the process.

67 posted on 10/05/2002 12:21:44 AM PDT by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Jimer
Bus has stated several times that we are fighting a new and different kind of war

And what about this "new and different" type of war justifies a "new and different" type of United States?

68 posted on 10/05/2002 12:22:56 AM PDT by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
You're in America now - speak English.

These monsters have Catholics at the top of the list - and all of your theories involving Bushes and Kissinger won't change that.

The only thing that will wake you up is a suitcase nuke in Rome.

69 posted on 10/05/2002 12:30:09 AM PDT by Senator Pardek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
And it will happen in the next ten years.
70 posted on 10/05/2002 12:31:56 AM PDT by Senator Pardek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Senator Pardek
I'm glad you bring up the "Holy War" aspect of this engagement against "Islam".

If we cannot win it with an absolute respect for and reliance on sound Christian principles, we have no basis taking on "Islam" in the name of Christianity.

71 posted on 10/05/2002 12:36:42 AM PDT by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
Great post. Ron Paul == great patriot.
72 posted on 10/05/2002 3:07:33 AM PDT by SteveH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
And what about this "new and different" type of war justifies a "new and different" type of United States?

The US is changing — for better or worse — every day. Yes, a "new and different" US is in the making, for better or for worse....with the help of average Americans. Don't let wishful thinking blind you.

73 posted on 10/05/2002 7:42:06 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Jimer
Yes, a "new and different" US is in the making, for better or for worse....with the help of average Americans. Don't let wishful thinking blind you.

I realize that our demographics are changing, we are a welfare state, we have abridged -- perhaps forever -- the so-called "God given" constitutional rights of our citizenry and have abandoned our Constitutional Republic in favor of the "democratization" model which communists have recognized for a century as the ideal means by which to exploit the "will of the people" in service of tyranny.

It's no secret I can't get past the shock and horror that is knowing we not only consider abortion to be the "vital" linchpin of our population control at home and abroad, but we now presume the right to make utilitarian best use of the "Excess" human lives we manufacture like widgets to supply the demand of the Economically Fit for children they can purchase to spec.

(Given the support of the director of the NIH for human cloning, I suspect that too shall become the law of the land soon enough.)

But regardless how many in this godless nation believe that truth is a matter of "Majority Rule", I still see no evidence that the Self Evident truths on which this nation was founded have changed ... which self evident truths included the fact that all men are created equal.

If I am blinded somehow to this inconceivable development, please point out for me the "new and different" self-evident truths on which our policies now are based so that I may get with the program as have you.

I would like them articulated as clearly as were the self-evident truths on which we based our original independence and claim to the moral authority to wage war.

74 posted on 10/05/2002 7:57:09 AM PDT by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
I'm certainly a big fan of Paul's perpetual excoriation of our entangling alliances with the UN.

Can you source his stand on the funding of Israel?

Yes. He has the traditional libertarian view:

Our policy of subsidizing both sides is ludicrous. We support Arabs and Jews, Pakistanis and Indians, Chinese and Russians. We have troops in 140 countries around the world just looking for trouble. Our policies have led us to support Al Qaeda in Kosovo and bomb their Serb adversaries. We have, in the past, allied ourselves with bin Laden, as well as Saddam Hussein, only to find out later the seriousness of our mistake. Will this foolishness ever end?

A non-interventionist foreign policy has a lot to say for itself, especially when one looks at the danger and inconsistency of our current policy in the Middle East.

source

I'd like to add another point. We currently plan to help North Korea build two nuclear reactors. Yet Bush called North Korea one of three nations in the "Axis of Evil", along with Iran and Iraq.

So we spend billions of dollars to invade one evil nation, Iraq, because it might have or soon acquire nuclear bomb material. Meanwhile we actively help another evil nation, North Korea, acquire nuclear bomb material.

75 posted on 10/05/2002 8:00:47 AM PDT by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: secretagent
Excellent point.

Thanks very much for the link.

76 posted on 10/05/2002 8:08:48 AM PDT by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Jimer
I have to go vote and run to work but I'll leave you with this in the hopes you understand where I'm coming from. It's an excerpt from Keyes's appearance at Free Republic's Treason Rally.

I am one of those who believes we are absolutely correct to apply to the Republicans the exact standards with which we so rightly excoriated the Democrats.

Why? Truth, by its very nature, does not change.


... you know something my friends, if we keep going the way we're going, persisting in the path that we have persisted in … then we, the very country that more than once in this century has saved the world from the shadow of the worst evils will no longer be there in the 21st Century to save the world from the shadow of evil.

And worse than that … we won't save the world from that shadow because we will be casting it.

We don't get it, do we? We are either going to continue to be the country that holds before the world those ideas and standards of godly justice and liberty and decency for which so many of our patriots died or we are going to turn into that power which plunges the world into a maelstrom of evil like nothing we have ever seen.

I frankly don't think that for American there will be a middle way. And that's the truth of it. And we are already at it. For we've had an administration that has aided and abetted and promoted and coerced the culture of death in every continent and toward every nation on the fact of the Earth already.

Using our capital and our money and our clout they have forced other nations to take the same ungodly stance toward innocent life in the womb that they take now.

So my friends, don't think that this is just some future that we are talking about. We are already far down the road toward the destruction of our republic, our conscience, our decency. The question isn't whether we will choose that road but whether we will turn back now before we pass the point of no return.



The American Heart ... The American Faith
77 posted on 10/05/2002 8:13:27 AM PDT by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
But regardless how many in this godless nation...
You say it's godless and others say there is too much God. Who is correct?
I still see no evidence that the Self Evident truths on which this nation was founded have changed ... which self evident truths included the fact that all men are created equal.
Self Evident truths are a statement of our ideals (as oppoesed to a Communist Manifesto) and they remain as written — however, the devil is in the intrepretation of those ideals and the interpretations are in constant flux.
If I am blinded somehow to this inconceivable development, please point out for me the "new and different" self-evident truths on which our policies now are based so that I may get with the program as have you.
Again, the "self-evident truths" remain static; the interpretion of them changes every day to fit the objectives of those who are doing the interpreting.
I would like them articulated as clearly as were the self-evident truths on which we based our original independence and claim to the moral authority to wage war.
I suspect that there are any number of accurate answers to that...and many of them contradict each other...by design.
78 posted on 10/05/2002 8:27:32 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
...all men are created equal.

That's a noble ideal to aim for, but if you think it's a fact then just take a look at our Justice Legal System.

79 posted on 10/05/2002 8:32:56 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
Uh ... okay. What does Moyer's framing of the question have to do with the substance of Paul's reply and how is it that the question somehow negates the prong of Just War that is defending against aggression?

It wasn't Moyer's question I was criticizing. It was Paul's non sequitor reponse that was criticizing.

Paul avoids completely the dangers of WMD and terrorism in his answer to Moyers question. Moyers asks if Sadaam is planning an attack against the U.S. The SUBSTANCE of Paul's response is to only address the possibility of a Sadaam attack from his army, navy and air force leaving out the obvious -- WMD and terrorist attack.

MOYERS: Have you seen or heard anything from the CIA, the Pentagon, the State Department or the White House to suggest that Saddam Hussein is planning an attack on the United States?

PAUL: No, I see nothing imminent. He doesn't have an air force. He doesn't have a navy. He can't even shoot down … he didn't shoot one of our airplanes down in twelve years … and his army is 1/3 of what it was twelve years ago. So, you know, this fictions that he's Hitler and that he's about to take over the Middle East … I think it's a stretch.

80 posted on 10/05/2002 8:45:11 AM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
Truth, by its very nature, does not change.

Yes, but, unfortunately, it is a concept, an ideal, and can not enforce itself. The state of the world shows that the influence of truth on human behavior is diminishing.

81 posted on 10/05/2002 8:46:41 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
You know as well as I do that Iraq poses a clear and CONSTANT direct danger to Israel. MOST of the Arab/Muslim states do. I can't think of anyone better suited to take down Saddam or anyone having more justification. WE, on the other hand, appear to be more bent on "Nation Building," or empire building, to the detriment of our direct war on terrorists. Therein lies the difference. I tend to very much agree with Dr. Paul on this.

What makes you think that the presidents reason for removing Sadaam from power is Nation Building or empire building?? That was the reason for Haiti and Bosnia, but it's not the case here.

82 posted on 10/05/2002 8:49:54 AM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Jimer
That's a noble ideal to aim for, but if you think it's a fact then just take a look at our Justice Legal System.

Actually, I think it behooves everyone to remember that our President -- in whom we vest all this moral authority to decide which nations to attack and which individuals to execute -- thinks that some human lives are fit only for the trash and therefore suitable for human research sans informed consent.

83 posted on 10/05/2002 2:55:39 PM PDT by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign
What makes you think that the presidents reason for removing Sadaam from power is Nation Building or empire building??

I've been reading the words of his adviser, Condoleeza Rice.

That was the reason for Haiti and Bosnia, but it's not the case here.

Perhaps we should finish what we started in Haiti so first to prove ourselves equal to the task of "nation-building" before embarking in haste elsewhere to depose dictators and "democratize" other nations.

84 posted on 10/05/2002 2:58:32 PM PDT by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
What makes you think that the presidents reason for removing Sadaam from power is Nation Building or empire building??

I've been reading the words of his adviser, Condoleeza Rice.

Addressing the U.N., this is what the president said should be the mission -- "The choice is up to the United Nations to show its resolve. The choice is up to Saddam Hussein to fulfill his word, and if neither of them acts, the United States in deliberate fashion will lead a coalition to take away the world's worst weapons from one of the world's worst leaders"

Better still, we should all listen to the President when he speaks to our sovereign country and defines the mission, this Monday.

85 posted on 10/05/2002 5:45:09 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign
Better still, we should all listen to the President when he speaks to our sovereign country and defines the mission, this Monday.

Looking forward to it. Thanks for the discussion.

We'll pick it up then. Regards.

86 posted on 10/05/2002 6:15:59 PM PDT by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
Looking forward to it. Thanks for the discussion. We'll pick it up then. Regards.

You're welcome A5.

Regards

87 posted on 10/05/2002 7:07:20 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

Comment #88 Removed by Moderator

To: Hobey Baker
So do I. Good man.
89 posted on 10/11/2002 11:10:13 AM PDT by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-89 last

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