Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Osama and Saddam (Hit piece on Bush)
Newsweek ^ | 7/29/05 | Richard Wolffe and Holly Bailey

Posted on 07/28/2005 3:29:20 PM PDT by bitt

June 29 - Just in case anyone was reaching for the remote, President George W. Bush hit his keynote as early as he could while still being polite. After thanking the troops at Fort Bragg, N.C., on Tuesday night, the first two lines of his speech were blindingly simple. “The troops here and across the world are fighting a global war on terror,” he said. “The war reached our shores on September the 11th, 2001.”

In other words: forget about the Downing Street memos and Colin Powell’s now discredited speech at the United Nations. This is one war, against one enemy, making Iraq simply a continuation of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. Or, as Bush put it, “Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war.” He might as well have stood in front of a picture of the Twin Towers.

It’s easy to see why this approach is so attractive to the White House. The president’s response to 9/11 remains a potent memory in public opinion. So potent that it still drives the only positive numbers in the president’s performance ratings. Bush has disapproval ratings of more than 50 percent on the economy, energy and health care, according to the latest Gallup poll. On Iraq, 58 percent disapprove of his handling of the war. But on terrorism, the president has maintained the support of the people: 55 percent approve of his performance.

There are only three major problems with Bush’s latest attempt to tie Iraq to 9/11. One is political, another personal, yet another is practical.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: biased; newsweak; rottenreporting
Get mad, folks and give Newsweak a call...this whole issue on line is dusturbing in it's obvious slanted 'reporting' and commentary, and besides slitting their own throats for readership, they continue to obstruct and interfere with the progress of the war.

Shameful and nearly unlawful.

1 posted on 07/28/2005 3:29:21 PM PDT by bitt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE; Blurblogger; neverdem; Tolik; Smartass; Chieftain; Happy2BMe; ken5050; Enterprise; ...


2 posted on 07/28/2005 3:31:22 PM PDT by bitt ('We will all soon reap what the ignorant are now sowing.' Victor Davis Hanson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bitt

Not gonna bother. It doesn't look like anyone is reading Newsweak anyhow.

3 posted on 07/28/2005 3:35:34 PM PDT by whershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bitt

These idiots put a great many people in danger with their foolish "Koran in the toilet" story, which was irresponsible and wrong. They are not qualified to comment any further.

Regards, Ivan

4 posted on 07/28/2005 3:36:59 PM PDT by MadIvan (You underestimate the power of the Dark Side -
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan

5 posted on 07/28/2005 3:42:59 PM PDT by andyandval (Try flushing a book down the toilet....get back to me on how you did)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bitt

Newsweak morons continue to work like termites to undermine the USA. Everything in this article is 'spun' to create a negative impression upon the reader. These scumbags are not Americans, no matter how much they may protest otherwise - they are allies of the Islamo-fascists.

6 posted on 07/28/2005 3:43:40 PM PDT by Enchante (Kerry's mere nuisances: Marine Barracks '83, WTC '93, Khobar Towers, Embassy Bombs '98, USS Cole!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bitt

Connect the dots Saddam and Bin Laden.....

God I luv internet archives...........

Iraq Tempts Bin Laden To Attack West

The Herald
By Ian Bruce
December 28, 1999

The world's most wanted man, Osama bin Laden, has been offered sanctuary in
Iraq if his worldwide terrorist network succeeds in carrying out a campaign of
high-profile attacks on the West over the next few weeks.

Intelligence sources say the Saudi dissident believed responsible for the
bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and a US military
barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1998, is running out of options for a safe haven.

He is now thought to have overcome his initial rejection of Saddam Hussein,
whom he regarded as an exploiter of the Islamic cause rather than a true
believer, and is considering the offer of a bolt-hole from which he can
continue to mastermind terrorism on a global scale.

A US counter-terrorist source said yesterday: "Our State Department issued a
worldwide warning on December 11. We have solid information that many of the
groups operating under bin Laden's patronage are planning 'spectaculars' to
coincide with the period leading up to and through the millennium

"They want to inflict maximum loss of life in return for publicity. Now we are
also facing the prospect of an unholy alliance between bin Laden and Saddam.
The implications are terrifying.

"We might be looking at the most wanted man on the FBI's target list gaining
access to chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons courtesy of Iraq's
clandestine research programmes."

The US intelligence community has been squeezing bin Laden's finances steadily
for several years. His personal fortune of anything up to £500m has been
whittled down to single figures, although funds continue to flow into the
coffers of his Al Qaeda - Arabic for "The Base" - organisation from wealthy
individuals in the Middle East.

These include members of the Saudi royal family opposed to American
involvement in the region and rich businessmen in the Gulf States hoping to
buy themselves immunity if bin Laden's Islamic revolution ever manages to
overthrow their governments.

But the bulk of his income comes from acting as middleman and fixer for the
Afghan opium producers. According to the United Nations, Afghanistan supplies
75% of the world's opium and its heroin derivatives in a narcotics' trade
worth an estimated £4bn to £6bn a year.

The Taleban religious fanatics who control 85% of Afghanistan need the cash to
fund their never-ending civil wars. They gave bin Laden refuge because he had
connections with the Chechen and Russian mafias and their access to
money-laundering in the West.

According to Middle Eastern intelligence sources, bin Laden rakes off anything
up to £500m a year from his pivotal role in the drugs' trade. It is more than
enough to underwrite the cost of mujahideen training camps in Afghanistan,
Pakistan and Sudan and the provision of weapons for bin Laden's personal war
against the US and its allies.

Up to 20 Islamic extremist groups operate under the loose control of Al Qaeda.

They include Algeria's GSPC, responsible for the casual murder of civilians in
the country's Kabylie region, and a network for recruiting Muslim volunteers
to fight in the Balkans and Chechnya.

Al Qaeda's tentacles spread across Europe and the Middle East, including the
United Kingdom. Up to 2000 young Muslims a year were enlisted in Britain
between 1995 and 1998 to fight militant Islam's cause.

They received basic survival and unarmed combat training in Britain, and were
then flown to various camps in Yemen, Pakistan, and Afghanistan to be
instructed in the use of firearms and explosives. A few were involved in
combat in the latter stages of the Bosnian conflict.

The spread of bin Laden's influence has spawned some strange alliances.

Israel's Mossad agency is currently helping the Russians identify known
fundamentalist militants in Chechnya. British, Italian and US agents
reportedly co-operated with Slobodan Milosevic's regime to root out veterans
of the 1979-89 Afghan-Russia war while they were themselves on opposite sides
in Bosnia.

The Americans have also resorted to hi-tech destabilisation. Various agencies
inserted "sniffer" software programmes into the banking systems of Europe and
the Middle East from the mid-1990s onwards.

These were targeted on known or suspected accounts for bin Laden's front men
in Holland, Britain, Switzerland, Italy, the US and the Caribbean.

When large amounts of cash were moved around, the programmes flagged up the
transactions. Computer experts then transferred or deleted the cash
electronically to starve Al Qaeda of funding.

Bin Laden has almost outstayed his welcome in Afghanistan. Despite the
Taleban's public declaration of protection for a "guest", the regime is
suffering from international sanctions as long as it harbours him.

The Americans have a continually updated plan for a special forces' team to
snatch him from his mountain lair in the Hindu Kush.

But they look back to a Soviet raid in the same area in April, 1986, when
three battalions of elite Spetznaz commandos went in after a local Afghan
commander. Few came back.

Bin Laden is understood to have selected Yemen, his father's birthplace, as a
first alternative. But the Yemenis could not protect him from the wrath of the
West or Saudi Arabia. Chechnya was his second choice, but the province is
being ground under Russia's military jackboot.

That leaves Iraq, and the potential for an alliance which would be everyone
else's nightmare.

7 posted on 07/28/2005 3:43:49 PM PDT by Names Ash Housewares
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Names Ash Housewares

Well, obviously Clinton was President then...

8 posted on 07/28/2005 3:51:56 PM PDT by coconutt2000 (NO MORE PEACE FOR OIL!!! DOWN WITH TYRANTS, TERRORISTS, AND TIMIDCRATS!!!! (3-T's For World Peace))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: bitt


9 posted on 07/28/2005 3:52:04 PM PDT by Enterprise ("Islam is not a religion, but rather a means of world conquest" - ALAN BURKHART.COM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bitt
Thanks, bitt. This is disgraceful, and all the more so, because it is too obvious that these liberals in the anti-Bush spin machine know the "truth of the matter." If their Arkancide boy and his ruthless wife were in the White House, and IF (theoretical only) they had launched the exact same war on terror as has our president, this same bunch of "journalists" (rag meisters) would be singing the Arkies' praises.

Good post, bitt. We should watch what is being written out there in LoonyVille.

Char :)

10 posted on 07/28/2005 3:55:02 PM PDT by CHARLITE (I propose a co-Clinton team as permanent reps to Pyonyang, w/out possibility of repatriation....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bitt

""In other words: forget about the Downing Street memos and Colin Powell’s now discredited speech at the United Nations. ""

How about this: In other words: forget about nick berg, 3000 human beings slaughtered on 11 Sept, decades of terrorist attacks against Americans, hundreds of thousands of muslims slaughtered at the hands of the dictators hussein, mutant medieval thugs, and on and on and on.........
Newspeak can go to hell - useless rag.......

11 posted on 07/28/2005 4:01:05 PM PDT by InsureAmerica (the only free cheese is in a mousetrap)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bitt

I had a lefty friend who had a 'taking the center of the board' chess analogy for why he thought we went in Iraq. I didn't get it at first. Upon further reflection, he may be right. What better place to concentrate both our efforts and their efforts in this global confrontation? Analogous to Bush's "Taking the war to them" speach...Didn't Sun Tzu say something about if you know you have to fight the next most important things to decide are when and where to fight?

12 posted on 07/28/2005 4:01:43 PM PDT by Lone Red Ranger (What's right is more important than who's right. Glad we're Right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Newsweak still publishes 51 issues too many each year.

13 posted on 07/28/2005 4:12:21 PM PDT by SmithL (There are a lot of people that hate Bush more than they hate terrorists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Names Ash Housewares

nice work.

Clintoon and his 'advisors' left us open to terrorism, and that's that. Most Americans wish that the leftys and the MSM would just shut up and do something helpful.

I only see these rags (Time, Newsweak) in offices now, and if emplooyees would make a stink about the ludictous costs and bias, maybe the bosses would send back a statement saying "Cancelled due to disinterest in your agendae".

14 posted on 07/28/2005 4:17:59 PM PDT by bitt ('We will all soon reap what the ignorant are now sowing.' Victor Davis Hanson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: bitt

Bunch of losers won't drop the propaganda.

15 posted on 07/28/2005 4:21:42 PM PDT by satchmodog9 (Murder and weather are our only news)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bitt


16 posted on 07/28/2005 4:22:12 PM PDT by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bitt
We will continue to hear this mantra over and over. The objective of Newsweek and evry other neocommunist you hear spouting it has little to do with Bush. The whole purpose is to divert attention from Willie's connection with OBL, Saddam, Iraqi oil money and thei frequent pre-9/11 contacts.

To prove Willie's involvement (that's the evidence Berger was destroying) is to implicate Hillie. The leftists back Hillie and must block/hide anything that might hurt her chances with the normal voters (the dem voters are too stupid to decide for themselves). Attacking W draws attention from Willie. That is one reason that an honest investigation of UN corruption is so important. If Volker dug deep enough, he'd find Willie (or his pardon buying surrogates) at the same trough as the UN thieves.

17 posted on 07/28/2005 4:22:41 PM PDT by Tacis ("Democrats - The Party of Traitors, Treachery and Treason!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tacis

Mark Rich, etc?

I agree with you...why the investigation is taking so long, tho, is beyond me..

we all could have completed this in say, 90 days...

18 posted on 07/28/2005 4:56:59 PM PDT by bitt ('We will all soon reap what the ignorant are now sowing.' Victor Davis Hanson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: bitt

Can the two numbnuts who wrote this piece mischaracterize reality and history any more?

I mean really.

19 posted on 07/28/2005 5:09:43 PM PDT by nuffsenuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bitt
Richard Wolffe and Holly Bailey

Worthless a-holes...I already have one.


20 posted on 07/28/2005 5:52:46 PM PDT by nothingnew (I fear for my Republic due to marxist influence in our government. Open eyes/see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bitt

Who cares!! The best to hurt these morons is by boycotting them. Don't buy their crap anymore. Buy the Weekly Standdard or National Review or the American Spectator. I haven't bought a magazine from the LSM in years. When they call for renewing my membership I say get lost. I suggest you do the same. Those that already buy this crap are already diehard liberals and as circulation wanes even futher, the more liberal they will get.

21 posted on 07/28/2005 7:06:04 PM PDT by bubman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bubman

I haven't subscribed to these glossy getchas in 20 years.

We need to keep an eye on what drivel and lies they perpetuate, tho.

22 posted on 07/28/2005 7:14:37 PM PDT by bitt ('We will all soon reap what the ignorant are now sowing.' Victor Davis Hanson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: bitt
I agree Bitt however I noticed over the years an inverse relationship between the circulation numbers and the bias or tilt of these magazines. It is economic imperative that pushes them to the left on the premise that those who will stay with them through thick and thin are those whose idiological bent is well served. Has they not beeen part of a huge muti-media conglomerate, I believe they would have all but dissapeared given the fundamental changes that occurred in the world of print media over the last ten of fifteen years.


23 posted on 07/28/2005 7:19:06 PM PDT by bubman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: bubman


24 posted on 07/28/2005 7:32:22 PM PDT by bitt ('We will all soon reap what the ignorant are now sowing.' Victor Davis Hanson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Lone Red Ranger

Picking Iraq as the "center of the board" makes sense. Osama was dug in in Afghanistan, so we had to start the fight there-but pulling the battle line into Iraq gives us a better advantage for these reasons:
1)Saddam was an ongoing & serious threat to us and the region. He defied the UN and there was a real potential he would ally with OSAMA.
2)Iraq had at least the framework of an infrastructure with cities, modern conveniences and the oil fields to support them. Afghanistan, on the other hand, is geographically, one of the most inhospitable battlegrounds in the world.
3) Iraqis are more educated and more tolerant than other ME populaces and they had been brutally repressed for decades under Saddam so they were ready for freedom.
4) We knew we had to keep a huge fighting force in the ME
while we looked for the rats nest that was Al Queda & our air bases had closed Saudi Arabia so using Iraq as a staging place was sound.
I just don't understand why some people say our forces should fight terror only in Afghanistan...that would put us at a big disadvantage.

25 posted on 07/29/2005 5:01:09 AM PDT by chgomac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: bitt

In in 1998, an Arab intelligence officer, who knows Saddam personally, predicted in Newsweek: "Very soon you will be witnessing large-scale terrorist activity run by the Iraqis." The Arab official said these terror operations would be run under "false flags" --spook-speak for front groups--including bin Laden's organization.

Then there were the predictions by an Iraqi with ties to Iraqi intelligence, Naeem Abd Mulhalhal, in Qusay's own newspaper several weeks before the attacks that stated bin Laden would “demolish the Pentagon after he destroys the White House and ”bin Laden would strike America “on the arm that is already hurting.” (referencing a second IRAQI sponsored attack on the World Trade Center). Another reference to New York was “[bin Laden] will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra everytime he hears his songs.” (e.g., “New York, New York”) which identified New York, New York as a target. Mulhalhal also stated, “The wings of a dove and the bullet are all but one and the same in the heart of a believer." which references an airplane attack.

The Arabic language daily newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabic also cited the cooperation between Iraq, bin Laden and Al December 1998 editorial, which predicted that “President Saddam Hussein, whose country was subjected to a four day air strike, will look for support in taking revenge on the United States and Britain by cooperating with Saudi oppositionist Osama Bin-Laden, whom the United States considers to be the most wanted person in the world.” This info is in the link provided below. How could these people have had foreknowledge without Iraq being involved?

Source for this info

Warning...slow loading .pdf file. This was from a lawsuit filed against Iraq after 9/11...the court ruled against Iraq.

There was also another lawsuit filed by the family of John O’Neill (a former FBI agent who captured Ramzi Yousef after the 1993 WTC bombings) after he died in the WTC on 9/11. His personal files from his years of traveling around the world investigating al-Qaeda are were used as evidence in the lawsuit. The evidence includes documents unearthed in the headquarters of the Mukhabarat (Iraq's intelligence service) and information gleaned from the interrogation of both al-Qaeda and Iraqi prisoners. (Link below). It also quotes Vincent Cannistraro, the former CIA counter-terrorism chief, who stated in October 2000 that Iraq had been wanting to carry out terrorist attacks, and that the Iraqi military had been in contact with Osama bin Laden.

Click Here

We know from these IIS documents that beginning in 1992 the former Iraqi regime regarded bin Laden as an Iraqi Intelligence asset. We know from IIS documents that the former Iraqi regime provided safe haven and financial support to an Iraqi who has admitted to mixing the chemicals for the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. We know from IIS documents that Saddam Hussein agreed to Osama bin Laden's request to broadcast anti-Saudi propaganda on Iraqi state-run television. We know from IIS documents that a "trusted confidante" of bin Laden stayed for more than two weeks at a posh Baghdad hotel as the guest of the Iraqi Intelligence Service.

Weekly Standard: The Mother of All Connections

List of newspaper article in the 90's which mention the world's concern regarding the growing relationship between OBL and Saddam:

Click here

Son of Saddam coordinates OBL activities:

Click here

The AQ connection (excellent):

Click here

Western Nightmare:

Click here

Saddam's link to OBL:

Click here

NYT: Iraq and AQ agree to cooperate:

Click here

Document linking them:

Click here

Iraq and terrorism - no doubt about it:

Click here

A federal judge rules there are links:

Click here

Wall Street Journal on Iraq and AQ:

Click here

Iraq and Iran contact OBL:

Click here

More evidence:

Click here

Saddam's AQ connection:

Click here

Further connections:

Click here

What a court of law said about the connections:

Click here

Some miscellaneous stuff on connections:

Click here

Saddam's Ambassador to Al Qaeda: (February 2004, Weekly Standard)

Click here

Yes - it's NewsMax but loaded with interesting bullet points.

Click here

Saddam's Fingerprints on NY Bombing (Wall Street Journal, June 1993)

Click here

Colin Powell: Iraq and AQ Partners for Years (CNN, February 2003)

Click here

The Iraq-Al Qaeda Connections (September 2003, Richard Miniter)

Click here

Oil for Food Scandal Ties Iraq and Al Qaeda (June 2003)

Click here

Saddam and OBL Make a Pact (The New Yorker, February 2003):

Click here

Al Qaeda's Poison Gas (Wall Street Journal, April 2004):

Click here

Wolfowitz Says Saddam behind 9/11 Attacks:

Click here

Saddam behind first WTC attack - PBS, Laurie Mylroie:

Click here

Growing Evidence of Saddam and Al Qaeda Link, The Weekly Standard, July 2003:

Click here

Qusay Hussein Coordinated Iraq special operations with Bin Laden Terrorist Activities, Yossef Bodansky, National Press Club

Click here

The Western Nightmare: Saddam and Bin Laden vs. the Rest of the World, The Guardian Unlimited:

Click here

Saddam Link to Bin Laden, Julian Borger, The Guardian, February 1999

Click here

The Al Qaeda Connection, The Weekly Standard, July 2003

Click here

Cheney lectures Russert on Iraq/911 Link, September 2003:

Click here

No Question About It, National Review, September 2003

Click here

Iraq: A Federal Judges Point of View

Click here

Mohammed's Account links Iraq to 9/11 and OKC:

Click here

Free Republic Thread that mentions some books Freepers might be interested in on this topic:

Click here

The Proof that Saddam Worked with AQ, The Telegraph, April 2003:

Click here

Saddam's AQ Connection, The Weekly Standard, September 2003

Click here

September 11 Victims Sue Iraq:

Click here

Osama's Best Friend: The Further Connections Between Al Qaeda and Saddam, The Weekly Standard, November 2003

Click here

Terrorist Behind 9/11 Attacks Trained by Saddam, The Telegraph, December 2003

Click here

James Woolsey Links Iraq and AQ, CNN Interview, March 2004, Also see Posts #34 and #35

Click here

A Geocities Interesting Web Site with maps and connections:

Click here

Bin Laden indicted in federal court, read down to find information that Bin Laden agreed to not attack Iraq and to work cooperatively with Iraq:

Click here

Case Closed, The Weekly Standard, November 03

Click here

CBS - Lawsuit: Iraq involved in 9/11:

Click here

Exploring Iraq's Involvement in pre-9/11 Acts, The Indianapolis Star:

Click here

The Iraq/AQ Connection: Richard Minister again

Click here

Militia Defector says Baghdad trained Al Qaeda fighters in chemical weapons, July 2002

Click here

The Clinton View of Iraq/AQ Ties, The Weekly Standard, December 2003

Click here

Saddam Controlled the Camps (Iraq/AQ Ties): The London Observer, November 01

Click here

Saddam's Terror Ties that Critics Ignore, National Review, October 2003:

Click here

Tape Shows General Wesley Clark linking Iraq and AQ:

Click here

The Missing Link (What the Senate Ingelligence Report Said about Iraq/AQ Connections)

Click Here

Credit to Peach for the above info.

Credit to joesbucks for the following links:

Dozens of links here:

Click here

Just a few of those links include:

The Clinton Justice Department's indictment against OBL in federal court which mentions the terrorist's connections to Iraq. November 4, 1998. The federal indictment:

Click here

Iraq and AQ agree to cooperate. The federal indictment against OBL working in concert with Iraq and Iran is mentioned. November 1998. The New York Times

Click here

Saddam reaching out to OBL January 1, 1999. Newsweek

Click here

ABC news reports on the Osama/Saddam connections January 14, 1999. ABC News

Click here

Western Nightmare: Saddam and OBL versus the World. Iraq recruited OBL. February 6, 1999. The Guardian

Click here

Saddam's Link to OBL February 6, 1999. The Guardian

Click here

Saddam offered asylum to bin Laden February 13, 1999. AP

Click here

And kabar submitted these two little gems showing Bin Laden supported Iraq and its struggle against the US and the West.

1996 Fatwa: "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places."

1998 Text of Fatwah Urging Jihad Against Americans

26 posted on 07/29/2005 6:45:44 AM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter

aaahhhhhhhhhhhh..........the motherlode.

27 posted on 07/29/2005 7:07:49 AM PDT by bitt ('We will all soon reap what the ignorant are now sowing.' Victor Davis Hanson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | 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
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson