Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Guild 10-7-2002 President's Address to the Nation Monday at 8:00 pm (est)
FOX NEWS ^ | Monday, October 07, 2002 | Assoc. Press

Posted on 10/07/2002 10:34:38 AM PDT by BigWaveBetty

Edited on 04/22/2004 12:34:50 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

WASHINGTON

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


TOPICS: Society; The Guild
KEYWORDS: guild; theguild
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-99 next last
To: Hillary's Lovely Legs
I'd prefer New Zealand, but their immigration laws are too stiff.
21 posted on 10/07/2002 6:09:20 PM PDT by Endeavor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Hillary's Lovely Legs; *The GUILD
President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
Remarks by the President on Iraq
Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
Cincinnati, Ohio
October 7, 2002

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Thank you for that very gracious and warm Cincinnati welcome. I'm honored to be here tonight; I appreciate you all coming.

Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.

Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best achieve it?

Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action -- why be concerned now; about the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror. These are all issues we've discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussions with you.

First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands aloe -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.

By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction.

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th.

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world.

Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.

And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.

Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both. And the United States military is capable of confronting both.

Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned that the regime has been much closer -- the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.

Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril."

Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.

Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to inspections, and applying diplomatic and economic pressure. Yet this is precisely what the world has tried to do since 1991. The U.N. inspections program was met with systematic deception. The Iraqi regime bugged hotel rooms and offices of inspectors to find where they were going next; they forged documents, destroyed evidence, and developed mobile weapons facilities to keep a step ahead of inspectors. Eight so-called presidential palaces were declared off-limits to unfettered inspections. These sites actually encompass twelve square miles, with hundreds of structures, both above and below the ground, where sensitive materials could be hidden.

The world has also tried economic sanctions -- and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people.

The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities -- only to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even exist.

The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people -- and in the last year alone, the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times.

After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.

Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. Among those requirements: the Iraqi regime must reveal and destroy, under U.N. supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction. To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside the country -- and these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them so they all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein's terror and murder. And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions.

The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

Many nations are joining us in insisting that Saddam Hussein's regime be held accountable. They are committed to defending the international security that protects the lives of both our citizens and theirs. And that's why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council seriously.

And these resolutions are clear. In addition to declaring and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism. It must cease the persecution of its civilian population. It must stop all illicit trade outside the Oil For Food program. It must release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including an American pilot, whose fate is still unknown.

By taking these steps, and by only taking these steps, the Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict. Taking these steps would also change the nature of the Iraqi regime itself. America hopes the regime will make that choice. Unfortunately, at least so far, we have little reason to expect it. And that's why two administrations -- mine and President Clinton's -- have stated that regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our nation.

I hope this will not require military action, but it may. And military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures. If Saddam Hussein orders such measures, his generals would be well advised to refuse those orders. If they do not refuse, they must understand that all war criminals will be pursued and punished. If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully; we will act with the full power of the United States military; we will act with allies at our side, and we will prevail. (Applause.)

There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait -- and that's an option. In my view, it's the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence. As Americans, we want peace -- we work and sacrifice for peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein.

Failure to act would embolden other tyrants, allow terrorists access to new weapons and new resources, and make blackmail a permanent feature of world events. The United Nations would betray the purpose of its founding, and prove irrelevant to the problems of our time. And through its inaction, the United States would resign itself to a future of fear.

That is not the America I know. That is not the America I serve. We refuse to live in fear. (Applause.) This nation, in world war and in Cold War, has never permitted the brutal and lawless to set history's course. Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom, and help others to find freedom of their own.

Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security and for the people of Iraq. The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan's citizens improved after the Taliban. The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family.

On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.

America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.

Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors.

Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.

Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote. I'm confident they will fully consider the facts, and their duties.

The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities.

We did not ask for this present challenge, but we accept it. Like other generations of Americans, we will meet the responsibility of defending human liberty against violence and aggression. By our resolve, we will give strength to others. By our courage, we will give hope to others. And by our actions, we will secure the peace, and lead the world to a better day.

May God bless America. (Applause.)

____________________________________________________________

Another excellent speech by our Commander in Chief. President Bush made it clear that we cannot wait for the preverbal smoking gun.

The only network that did not show the speech in my area was NBC. Fear Factor is just too important to be delayed 30 minutes.

On the radio this morning ABC news is reporting the Presidents has soften his position about going to war with Iraq. They must have been watching Fear Factor.

God Bless you President Bush.

22 posted on 10/08/2002 2:43:41 AM PDT by BigWaveBetty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

These last two paragraphs in Charles Krauthammer Monday, October 7, 2002 column What Good Is Delay? really sum up what's been sticking in my craw these last few months:

I happen to believe that the preemption school is correct, that the risks of allowing Saddam Hussein to acquire his weapons will only grow with time. Nonetheless, I can both understand and respect those few Democrats who make the principled argument against war with Iraq on the grounds of deterrence, believing that safety lies in reliance on a proven (if perilous) balance of terror rather than the risky innovation of forcible disarmament by preemption.

What is hard both to understand and to respect, however, is the delay school. They tell us that this war will be both terrible and unnecessary -- and then come out foursquare in support of starting it later, after Saddam Hussein has refused to play nice with inspectors. They manage to criticize the war, and still come out in favor of it. A neat trick -- and, given the gravity of the issue, an unseemly one.

23 posted on 10/08/2002 2:56:32 AM PDT by BigWaveBetty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Timeout
Partial transcript of Daschle on MTP. Link to full transcript.

MR. RUSSERT: But if you pass a resolution different from the one in the House, then it has to either go to a conference committee or the House has to pass your resolution, it could further delay this entire debate.

SEN. DASCHLE: Well, I think it’s unlikely that the resolution would be delayed. I think that we could negotiate something, just as we have done in the last couple of days. It took the administration a matter of days to get to this point. It would be a matter of hours, really, to negotiate the balance of it. Senator Lugar, Senator Specter, Senator Hagel, along with Senator Biden and others, have said, “Look, we’ve got to tie down this question, if we can, about what the use of force would be appropriately employed or how it would be employed,” and I think tying it to the weapons of mass destruction is exactly what we’re trying to do here.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you think the president would be open to those changes?

SEN. DASCHLE: Well, I think that we often cite the ’98 resolution as our precedent for this action. That’s exactly what we did in the ’98 resolution. We tied it down to the use of force. We weren’t as broad as this resolution now implies, and so I think that it’s appropriate to go back to that precedent and to work with the administration to ensure that that’s their understanding, as well as ours.

MR. RUSSERT: You raised the ’98 resolution. There was a resolution back in January of ’98, which you know well and I’ll put it on the screen. These were the words: “Resolved by the Senate...That Congress...urges the President to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs...” And you’ll see that’s one Tom Daschle from January 28. But you also went on, Senator—and this is quite striking. These are words you uttered in February of 1998. And let me show you and our viewers. You were talking about the Clinton administration: “The administration has said, ‘Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?’ That’s what they’re saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don’t have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily.” [whooptie do, clintoon lobed a couple of bombs at Iraq and what was the result? Zip, zero, nada. Except perhaps killing some innocent Iraqi's.]

The Bush White House will suggest that you were trying to give President Clinton more support when he was taking on Saddam Hussein in 1998 than you’re willing to give a Republican president in the year 2002.

[Here comes the tap dancing.]

SEN. DASCHLE: Tim, I have said we support strongly the president’s position for regime change in Iraq. We have said from the very beginning if there is no other recourse, we will do everything possible to ensure that that goal can be achieved, as long as it’s tied to the weapons of mass destruction. That, in our view, is what we’re attempting to do here. Let’s explore to the maximum degree possible our options through the United Nations. Let’s ensure that we have the broadest international support for whatever it is we decide that we can achieve. That’s what we’re doing. I think in large measure, that’s what the resolution will acknowledge when we pass it sometime later on this week or sometime shortly thereafter. We will first attempt to use every diplomatic means available. That’s what I said we ought to do before. We ought to, if no other option is available, after we’ve exhausted those diplomatic means, use preemptive force, unilaterally if necessary.

Enjoy your special place in Hell Mr. Weasel.

24 posted on 10/08/2002 3:13:17 AM PDT by BigWaveBetty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: BigWaveBetty
Thank you for the transcript of our President's excellent speech. I appreciate it.
25 posted on 10/08/2002 4:33:19 AM PDT by lodwick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: BigWaveBetty
Another big Thank You for the Russert interview with the tiny lying 'rat weasel.
26 posted on 10/08/2002 4:36:43 AM PDT by lodwick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: lodwick
You're most welcome. I've been anxiously waiting for it to come out. Almost dropped my teeth when Timmy asked the question!

Have a very busy day again today, I'll try and stop by when I can.

Hope all y'alls day goes splendidly! :-) *sniff* I miss all y'all already!

27 posted on 10/08/2002 4:46:36 AM PDT by BigWaveBetty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: BigWaveBetty; lodwick
Good morning. I hope you all have a great day. Brrr, it's a bit chilly here.

Anyone think Sen. Windbag C. Birdbrain (aka Robert C. Byrd) opposes the war because his son-in-law is an Arab?

He is married to the former Erma Ora James, his high school sweetheart and a coal miner's daughter, and they are the parents of two daughters, Mrs. Mohammad (Mona Byrd) Fatemi and Mrs. Jon (Marjorie Byrd) Moore. source.

28 posted on 10/08/2002 5:15:05 AM PDT by mountaineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: mountaineer
Whoa - I did not know this. Thank you.

When is that old clown going to step down and shut up?
29 posted on 10/08/2002 5:20:02 AM PDT by lodwick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: mountaineer
Good Morning Guilder's!

Didn't our Commander in Chief look BEAUTIFUL last night? I liked his gentle (but strong) tone as well!

I managed to get tickets to see President Bush speak at the Manchester NH Armory last Saturday morning. George was TOTALLY AWESOME! We were only 20-25 feet away! Lots of eye contact with Dubya *sigh* My husband and I were handshaking distance on George's way out and I would have pushed it if I hadn't been so hot & sweaty (it was a sweatfest in the Armory). We were so close!
What can I say, words can't explain. He is a great looking guy and doesn't need (or wear) makeup. An eloquent and strong speaker as well. No TelePrompTers Saturday and he spoke for a full 45 minutes in the sweltering heat. I never ever thought we would get so close to him. My dad, Mom & sister went as well. Today was my parents 39th wedding anniversary so they loved their anniversary present!

30 posted on 10/08/2002 5:25:39 AM PDT by wndycndy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: wndycndy; lodwick; All
Thanks for that first-hand report. It's always extra special to hear the president in person!

The news: Cindy Adams is still saying Chels is going to appear in AbFab:

CHELSEA. The Clinton daughter who lives in the same-name area. Sports easy work clothes, like a gray pant suit which rides up her ankles a bit, and carries a chic Hogan's Script bag, which Sandra Bullock and Susan Sarandon were photographed toting and is like $900 retail.

Sometimes walks along reading Vogue. Holding it in front of her face isn't to hide herself because she's friendly. With hair tied back and boyfriend Ian Klaus, with hair all curly, flowing and like she used to wear it, they say hi to all who pass on the block. Obviously lighthearted, they're in love with one another and New York.

She's also going to a gym. Maybe to prep for her acting debut in TV's "Absolutely Fabulous" Christmas Special. Stars Joanna Lumley and Jennifer Saunders playing the Bollinger-swilling Patsy and Edina are getting $200,000 each for the Special. What Chelsea's getting, I don't know. [But it would be her first paycheck, no doubt] It's been reported her scene is loitering around a shop to catch Joanna and Jennifer's attention so she can be in Patsy's magazine. And that's probably more than anyone needs to know about Chelsea in Chelsea. NY Post

Click here to see x42 adopting his lovely wife's fashion sense.

31 posted on 10/08/2002 5:32:44 AM PDT by mountaineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: All
Oh, those crazy, high-class Kennedys (also from Cindy Adams' column):

CHICAGO. 1996. Democratic convention. I experienced Maryland Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, a Robert and Ethel Kennedy daughter. I reported it then. I retell it now only because her current hustle for the state's governorship has Time calling her "a clumsy campaigner who somehow failed to inherit the family's political touch."

The story: I was wearing a 5-year-old red polka-dot Albert Nipon dress. Introduced to me, the way this politician/diplomat/public official responded right to my face was: "God, you still wearing that. I used to have that dress. I got rid of it years ago."

32 posted on 10/08/2002 5:35:16 AM PDT by mountaineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ
Sepaking of the land of Kennedys:

BOSTON -- Former New York city mayor Rudy Giuliani will be in Boston Tuesday to campaign for Republican gubernatorial candidate Mitt Romney. Giuliani and Romney will do a walking tour of Hanover Street in the North End beginning at 2:45 p.m., then join a rally at Paul Revere Park.

.... On Thursday, former president Bill Clinton will visit the city to stump for O'Brien. source.

33 posted on 10/08/2002 5:45:52 AM PDT by mountaineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: wndycndy
Thanks for the first hand report - what a super evening for you and your family. Way to go.
34 posted on 10/08/2002 5:53:33 AM PDT by lodwick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: mountaineer
I got this crappy email in this mornings bunch. What a bunch of hooey. I'm posting it here with the link. You know what to do.

Breaking News and Commentary from Citizens for Legitimate Government October 8, 2002

http://www.legitgov.org/

URGENT!! Calls are needed to Senator Byrd's office to stop the war! It is urgent to call Sen. Robert Byrd's office 202-224-3954 and ask the Senator to filibuster against the war resolution of the Administration (and Dem leadership). Or, call 800-839-5276 and ask for his office. Senator Byrd's office is taking a poll on whether he should do this. Sen. Byrd local phone/fax numbers, if toll-free mailbox is "full": 304-342-5855; Byrd's fax is: 304-343-7144. Also, call Jim McDermott, at 202-225-3106; McDermott's fax is: 202-225-6197.

35 posted on 10/08/2002 6:03:05 AM PDT by Iowa Granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Iowa Granny
An anti-war/pro-Palestinian site also is pushing for Bobby Byrd to filibuster. Good grief, once he gets going, there's no stopping him (the death of his dog, Billy, notwithstanding). Check this out.
36 posted on 10/08/2002 6:10:49 AM PDT by mountaineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: mountaineer; BigWaveBetty; Hillary's Lovely Legs; lodwick; B4Ranch; All
I need help. I'm looking for the origin of the following quote:

The Voters have spoken, the B@stards!

I know the quote, but I don't know who said it. Does anyone know how to do a search to find out who said it?

37 posted on 10/08/2002 6:37:53 AM PDT by Iowa Granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Iowa Granny
Maybe this:

Not Churchill, but Mo Udall said, "'The voters are the people who have spoken--the bastards,' an anecdote about politician used to console campaign workers on defeat in a primary." Chicago Sun-Times, July 14, 1976. From Political Quotations, Daniel B. Baker, ed., p. 45. link.

38 posted on 10/08/2002 6:51:59 AM PDT by mountaineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Iowa Granny
In every likelihood, two candidates will absorb the unvanquishable momentum that will deliver them their parties' nominations, and the others will be moping about late Tuesday feeling like Mo Udall that night in New Hampshire in 1976, when polling results inspired this unforgettable tribute: "The voters have spoken -- the bastards." source
39 posted on 10/08/2002 6:55:02 AM PDT by mountaineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: wndycndy
Didn't our Commander in Chief look BEAUTIFUL last night?

Yes he did look beautiful but my question is "Why won't he support our troops?" It's okay to fight and die for America but don't expect America to give you the same pension as a clerk in the Social Security Office.
New Pension Benefits Imperil Defense Bill, Bush Vows to Veto entire Budget

Retired Disabled Veterans need your help, or buddy can you spare a minute or two? Attention: VetsCoR

40 posted on 10/08/2002 7:03:05 AM PDT by B4Ranch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-99 next 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
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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