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

Skip to comments.

Vanity: Looking for a thread about liberal contradictions
23 February 2006

Posted on 02/23/2006 7:12:47 PM PST by Lando Lincoln

I am driving myself nuts looking for a thread that a FReeper started recently regarding the inane contradictions of liberalism. Things like, "why are liberals for abortion but against capital punishment?". I wanted to check back on the thread but the "10 pounds in a 5 pound sack syndrome" has taken over. I did not bookmark it. If anyone can direct me to it, I would be very grateful.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: left; leftists; liberalism; liberals
Will check back later.

Lando

1 posted on 02/23/2006 7:12:49 PM PST by Lando Lincoln
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln

Any speech by John F'kn Kerry is a good starting place.


2 posted on 02/23/2006 7:15:27 PM PST by AZRepublican ("The degree in which a measure is necessary can never be a test of the legal right to adopt it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
Don't know if this is the thread you're looking for, but here's a recent one that has the abortion/capital punishment contradiction.
3 posted on 02/23/2006 7:20:36 PM PST by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln

Lando, I did know if this is it but take a look.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1582773/posts


4 posted on 02/23/2006 7:30:12 PM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
some stuff I had saved:

Things You Have to Believe to Be a Democrat Today
1. Drug addiction is a disease that should be treated with compassion and understanding...unless the addict is a Conservative talk show host.
2. The United States should be subservient to the United Nations. Our highest authority is not God and the U.S. Constitution, but a collective of tinpot dictators (and their appeasers) and the U.N. charter.
3. Government should relax drug laws regardless of the potential for abuse, but should pass new and unConstitutional anti-gun laws because of the potential for abuse.
4. Calls for increased security after a terrorist attack are "political opportunism," but calls for more gun control after a criminal's spree killing is "a logical solution."
5. "It Takes a Village" means everything you want it to mean...except creeping socialist government involvement in the nuclear family.
6. Disarming innocent, law-abiding citizens helps protect them from evil, lawless terrorists and other thugs.
7. Slowly killing an unborn innocent by tearing it apart limb from limb is good. Slowly killing an innocent disabled woman by starving her to death is good. Quickly killing terrorists, convicted murderers and rapists is BAD.
8. Every religion should be respected and promoted in public schools the name of diversity, so long as that religion isn't Christianity.
9. The best way to support our troops is to criticize their every move. This will let them know they're thought of often.
10. Sexual harassment, groping and drug use are degenerate if you're the governor of California, but it's okay if you're the President of the United States.
11. Sex education should be required so that teens can make informed choices about sex, but gun education should be banned because it will turn those same teens into maniacal mass-murderers.
12. Minorities are blameless for the hatred of the racist; women are blameless for the hatred of the rapist; but America is entirely at fault for the hatred of Islamofascists.
13. Poverty is the cause of all terrorism...which is why the leaders of al Qaeda are typically U.S.-educated and were raised in wealth and luxury.
14. The Patriot Act is a horrific compromise of Constitutional rights, but anti-Second Amendment laws and Franklin Roosevelt's Presidential Order 9066 must be regarded "reasonable precautions."
15. We should unquestioningly honor the wishes of our age-old allies, even when said allies no longer act like our allies and have vested economic interests in propping up our enemies.
16. Socialized medicine is the ideal. Nevermind all those people who spend every dime they have to get to the United States so they can get quality medical care...that their nation's socialized medical community can't provide.
17. Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky and Natalie Maines are perfectly qualified to criticize our leadership, but Arnold Schwarzenegger, Charlton Heston, and Dennis Miller are just ignorant political hacks.
18. John Lott's research on how gun ownership reduces crime is junk science, but Michael Bellesiles is still an authority on why gun control is good (even though he was forced to resign from Emory due to research misconduct over his book "Arming America").
19. Bush's toppling the Saddam regime was a "diversion," but Clinton's lobbing a couple of cruise missiles at Iraq in the thick of the Lewinsky sex scandal was "sending a message."
20. A president who lies under oath is okay, but a president who references sixteen words from an allies' intelligence report should be dragged through the streets naked.
21. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning Second Amendment rights and shopping the courts for judges sympathetic to causes that wouldn't pass in any legislature.
22. "The People" in the First Amendment means The People; "the People" in the Fourth Amendment means The People; "the People" in the Ninth Amendment means The People; "the People" in the Tenth Amendment means The People; but "the People" in the Second Amendment (ratified in 1791) means the National Guard (created by an Act of Congress in 1903).
23. You support a woman's "right to choose" to kill her unborn child, but don't believe that same woman is competent enough to homeschool the children she bears.
24. Proven draft-dodging is irrelevant, but baseless claims of AWOL status is crucial to national security.
25. Threatening to boycott Dr. Laura's and Rush Limbaugh's advertisers is exercising Freedom of Speech, but threatening to boycott CBS's "The Reagans" and Liberal actors over their asinine anti-American remarks is censorship and McCarthyist blacklisting.

Virtually anyone can be a Democrat. Just simply quit thinking and vote that way. If you want to be a GOOD Democrat, however, there are some prerequisites you must have first. Compare them below and see how you rate...
1. You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of Federal funding.
2. You have to believe that the same school system that can't teach 4th graders how to read is somehow the best qualified to teach those same kids all about sex.
3. You have to believe that guns, in the hands of law-abiding Americans, are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology, in the hands of Chinese communists.
4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.
5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate, and more affected by Americans driving SUVs'!
6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.
7. You have to be against capital punishment but support abortion on demand.
8. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists from Seattle do.
10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
11. You have to believe the U.S. military, not evil, tyrannical regimes, start wars.
12. You have to believe the NRA is bad, because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because it supports certain parts of the constitution.
13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee or Thomas Edison.
15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.
16. You have to believe Hillary Clinton is all about "progress" and not power. She just wants to help us out of the archaic system of governing that we've been subjected to since our founding.
17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried, is because the right people haven't been in charge.
18. You have to believe Republicans telling the truth belong in jail, but a cheat, liar and sex offender belongs in the White House and you would vote him back in there in a New York minute (if you could).
19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites and beastiality should be constitutionally protected and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
20. You have to believe that illegal Democrat Party funding by the Chinese is somehow in the best interest of the United States.
21. You have to believe that the vociferous minorities who protest against prayer and saluting the flag in school, the 10 commandments in court, have far more rights than the majority who believe in God and country and want these values to be instilled in our young children

5 posted on 02/23/2006 7:30:58 PM PST by Sisku Hanne (Happy 2006...The Year of the Black Conservative!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
Maybe this one? cogent things liberals have said
6 posted on 02/23/2006 7:33:35 PM PST by p23185
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sisku Hanne
Now that you're thinking like a liberal, like a Michael Moore or Ted Kennedy, perhaps it'll be easier to understand why you...

...think that fighting back against terrorism is futile because it creates a cycle of violence. So you see killing terrorists only produces more terrorists? Just as killing Nazis in WW2 only produced more Nazis & bombing Hiroshima led to huge upsurges in Japanese recruiting.
...claim to favor deterrence to intimidate our enemies into leaving us alone...until we're attacked, at which point you counsel not responding.
...simultaneously believe Iraq was a "war for oil" and blame George Bush personally for higher gas prices.
...claim that we're acting "unilaterally" in Iraq despite the fact that there are currently more than 30 nations with men on the ground supporting us there.
...blame “neocons” for somehow manipulating the country into war in Iraq for shadowy and sinister purposes despite the fact you’re not even sure exactly what a neocon is.
...think it's vitally important that we not only put our self-interest aside, but make great sacrifices, to gain the approval of nations like France, Russia, China, & Germany, that history has shown are going to nakedly pursue their own self-interest no matter what we do.
...believe that before 9/11, Bush should have started jailing suspicious characters, closed America's airports, and warned all Americans of impending doom based on the flimsiest of non-specific information. But now, after we've been hit by terrorists and have much better intelligence, you laugh at the color coded alert system and consider it to be nothing more than a political ploy designed to perk up Bush's poll ratings.
...say that only the United Nations can legitimize a military venture...well unless a Democrat is in office, in which case it's fine to bypass the UN whenever it's convenient like Bill Clinton did when we bombed Kosovo.
...are willing to do whatever it takes to defend the American public from terrorists...as long as the French and Germans say its OK.
...believe 9/11 was just a handy dandy excuse to get rid of the Taliban so we could run a vulnerable, fragile, oil pipeline that Unocal gave up on back in 1998 through a country teeming with warlords, jihadis, & Taliban dead-enders.
...incessantly trash patriotic Christians as dangerous extremists, but cry "bigotry" whenever someone criticizes radical Islamists who support terrorism and hate America.
...support spending tax dollars hand over fist on everything from free needle exchanges for addicts to water stations in the middle of the desert for illegal aliens, but become a fiscal conservative when anyone starts talking about funding the military, our intelligence services, or missile defense.
...only cared about the fate the Iraqi people when Bush was talking about going to war. When Saddam was torturing them you had nothing to say and now that they're relying on our help to build a democracy, you believe we should pull out and leave to their fate. But of course, if we pulled out and things fell apart, you'd then again care about the Iraqi people...at least until the November elections.
...look at the Middle-East and think the primary problem there is Israel, a successful, pro-American democracy, not all of the corrupt, terrorist supporting dictators and fascists who hate America, oppress their own people, and want to drive the Israelis into the sea.
...spent the eighties claiming Reagan’s attempt to bring down the Soviet Union was futile and that it could never work, only to spend every day since the Berlin Wall fell saying that you knew all along that the Soviet Union was about to collapse and Reagan had nothing to do with it.

Congratulations! You now understand how the left looks at foreign policy and defending America. So, if you ever get caught in the middle of a peace rally or the Democratic National Convention, hopefully you'll be able to bluff your way out without getting called a fascist or having a "no blood for oil" sign shoved in your face!

7 posted on 02/23/2006 7:34:45 PM PST by Sisku Hanne (Happy 2006...The Year of the Black Conservative!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sisku Hanne
Who Am I?

I don’t believe in the concept of evil, But I think the Bush administration is evil.
I care more about getting my social security and Medicare Than I care about genocidal dictators.
I weep for whales and dying animals, But I am unconvinced of the goodness and global necessity of freedom; even after mass graves are discovered.
I want world peace, But I’m not willing to export freedom.
Despite the success of the war against terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq; Despite the success of the tax cuts and the rebounding economy, I will continue to undermine the Bush Administration.
I still believe in moral relativism, Even after 9/11.
I care more about what the rest of the world thinks of America Than I do about the United States' national security.
I will say nothing, do nothing, and be nothing In the name of tolerance And in order to avoid serious confrontation.
I support troops Who are following orders I do not agree with.
I think all fighting is wrong, Even when its fighting to stop bad guys.
I care more about the mental and emotional scarring of a few Iraqi rebels Than I do about the rape of Jessica Walker Lynch Or the murder, burning, and sexual mutilation of four American civilians by Iraqis.
I care more about the mistreatment of a few Iraqi rebels Than the worse atrocities John Kerry has admitted to committing.
I value all life, Even the lives of villains.
I don't think all Islam is bad because what a few bad Muslims did on 9/11, But I do think all of the U.S. Military is bad because of a few misbehaving reservists.
I love all humanity, But I hate people in general.
I believe in democracy, But I'm afraid of voters.
I want more jobs, But I hate capitalism.
I'm for multinationalism, But I'm against outsourcing American jobs.
I celebrate Cinco de Mayo, But I hate Columbus Day.
I think everybody should be educated about Islam, But whenever somebody mentions Christianity I gag.
I want to save whales and protect the environment, But I support a woman’s right to kill her babies.
I think having a high I.Q. and an appreciation of art Makes me morally wise.
I question authority, And I can’t keep a job.
I question reality, And I struggle with depression and suicide.
I am an adult, But I have the world view of a 14 year old girl.
I am bulging with morality In all the wrong places.
I am the liberal mind.

8 posted on 02/23/2006 7:39:22 PM PST by Sisku Hanne (Happy 2006...The Year of the Black Conservative!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln

WMD/Sadam quotes:

Washington Prowler
In Their Own Words
By The Prowler
Published 11/15/2005 11:56:50 AM
(This document was distributed today at the Senate Republican Policy Lunch.)

IRAQ & WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION:
WHAT THE DEMOCRATS SAID AND WHEN THEY SAID IT

SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY: "What Was Said Before Does Matter. The President's Words Matter. The Vice President's Words Matter. So Do Those Of The Secretary Of State And The Secretary Of Defense And Other High Officials In The Administration." (Sen. Edward Kennedy, Congressional Record, 11/10/05)

Executive Summary:
Democrats Consistently Warned The Nation Of The Threat Posed By Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction




Democrats, Circa 1998

-- President Bill Clinton: "[M]ark my words, [Saddam] will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."
-- Vice President Al Gore: "Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat ... to the security of the world."
-- Secretary Of State Madeleine Albright: "[W]e are concerned ... about [Saddam's] ability in the long run ... to threaten all of us with weapons of mass destruction."
-- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger: "[Saddam] will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, and someday, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again."
-- U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson: "Facts are facts. Iraq has been deceiving the international community with the weaponization of nerve gas. It's that simple."
-- Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.): "[Saddam] is too dangerous of a man to be given carte blanche with weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.): "[Saddam's] chemical and biological weapons capabilities are frightening."




Democrats, Circa 2002

-- Former Vice President Al Gore: "We know that [Saddam] has stored away secret supplies of biological weapons and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.): "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.): "Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow."
-- Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.): "These weapons represent an unacceptable threat."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.): "Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."



FORMER PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON


President Bill Clinton Called Iraq "A Rogue State With Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Ready To Use Them Or Provide Them To Terrorists..." CLINTON: "In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program." (Bill Clinton, Remarks At The Pentagon, 2/17/98)

Clinton, On Saddam's WMD: "Some Day, Some Way, I Guarantee You He'll Use The Arsenal. And I Think Every One Of You Who Has Really Worked On This For Any Length Of Time, Believes That, Too." CLINTON: "[L]et's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who has really worked on this for any length of time, believes that, too."
(Bill Clinton, Remarks At The Pentagon, 2/17/98)

Clinton, On Saddam: "[M]ark My Words, He Will Develop Weapons Of Mass Destruction. He Will Deploy Them, And He Will Use Them."
(Bill Clinton, Remarks At The White House, 12/16/98)

In November 1997, Clinton Directed Then-Secretary Of Defense William Cohen To "Raise The Profile Of The Biological And Chemical Threat." "Cohen, meanwhile, was arguing that a true U.S. vital interest -- and one that could easily be explained in public -- was Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, often referred to in abbreviated terms as WMD. Clinton directed him on Nov. 13 to raise the profile of the biological and chemical threat. The following day, the former senator from Maine held a five-pound bag of sugar on ABC's This Week Sunday program and said the same quantity of anthrax could kill half the population of Washington." (Barton Gellman, Dana Priest and Bradley Graham, "Diplomacy And Doubts On The Road To War," The Washington Post, 3/1/98)



Cohen, Following Clinton's Orders On ABC's This Week: "What Is On The Horizon Is Anthrax, VX, Sarin, And Other Types Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction." COHEN: "All of his neighbors in the region, I think, are fearful of what Saddam Hussein has done in the past and apprehensive of what he might do in the future. We intend to intensify that apprehension on their part by showing it's not invasion of Kuwait, it's not invasion of Saudi Arabia that's on the horizon. What is on the horizon is anthrax, VX, sarin, and other types of weapons of mass destruction." (ABC's This Week, 11/16/97)



Clinton: "I Have No Doubt Today, That Left Unchecked, Saddam Hussein Will Use These Terrible Weapons Again." CLINTON: "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them, not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." (Bill Clinton, Remarks At The White House, 12/16/98)

Clinton Insisted Saddam Sat Atop The List Of "Predators Of The 21st Century." CLINTON: "[T]his is not a time free from peril, especially as a result of reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals. We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century, ... [T]hey will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us." (Bill Clinton, Remarks At The Pentagon, 2/17/98)



FORMER VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE


Vice President Al Gore Claimed "Saddam's Ability To Produce And Deliver Weapons Of Mass Destruction Poses A Grave Threat ... To The Security Of The World." GORE: "There should be no doubt, Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat to the peace of that region and the security of the world. His defiance of the will of the international community to allow UNSCOM to do its job cannot and will not be tolerated." (Al Gore, Remarks At The Pentagon, 2/17/98)

Gore: "If You Allow Someone Like Saddam Hussein To Get Nuclear Weapons, Ballistic Missiles, Chemical Weapons, Biological Weapons, How Many People Is He Going To Kill…?" GORE: "[I]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He's already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons; he poison gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunctions about killing lots and lots of people." (CNN's Larry King Live, 12/16/98)

When Discussing Saddam's Iraq, Gore Invoked The Specter Of "Ballistic Missiles, Nuclear Weapons, Chemical And Biological Weapons." "Remember, Peter, this is a man who has used poison gas on his own people and on his neighbors repeatedly. He's trying to get ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapons. He could be a mass murderer of the first order of magnitude. We are not going to allow that to happen." (ABC News' "Special Report," 12/16/98)

Gore, In 2002: "We Know That [Saddam] Has Stored Away Secret Supplies Of Biological Weapons And Chemical Weapons Throughout His Country." (Al Gore, Remarks To The Commonwealth Club Of California, San Francisco, CA, 9/23/02)



FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE MADELEINE ALBRIGHT


Secretary Of State Madeleine Albright Said Saddam "Had The Capability With The VX Agents To Destroy Every Man, Woman And Child On Earth." ALBRIGHT: "Weapons of mass destruction are the threat of the future. I think the president explained very clearly to the American people that this is the threat of the 21st century. It's hard to control, hard to get at, that we need to – you know, Saddam Hussein had the capability with the VX agents to destroy every man, woman and child on earth. So we have a serious problem here. He is a threat." (PBS' The Newshour With Jim Lehrer, 12/17/98)

Albright: "[W]e Are Concerned, As The President Said, About [Saddam's] Ability In The Long Run To Threaten His Neighbors, And Frankly, To Threaten All Of Us With Weapons Of Mass Destruction." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 12/16/98)

Albright Accused Saddam Of Pursuing Dual Threats To International Peace: Terrorism And Weapons Of Mass Destruction. ALBRIGHT: "Countering terror is one aspect of our struggle to maintain international security and peace. Limiting the dangers posed by weapons of mass destruction is a second. Saddam Hussein's Iraq encompasses both of these challenges, while posing yet a third. .. As we look ahead, we will decide how and when to respond to Iraq's actions based on the threat they pose to Iraq's neighbors, to regional security and to U.S. vital interests. Our assessment will include Saddam's capacity to reconstitute, use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction." (Madeleine Albright, Remarks At The American Legion Convention, New Orleans, LA, 9/9/98)

Albright: "[Saddam] Has Chosen To Spend His Money On Building Weapons Of Mass Destruction And Palaces For His Cronies." (Madeleine Albright, Remarks To The Chicago Council On Foreign Relations, Chicago, IL, 11/12/99)

Albright Justified A December 1998 Attack On Iraq As A Way To Increase America's Security And "Deal With The Threat" Of Saddam's Weapons. ALBRIGHT: "President Clinton felt very strongly that it was in our national security interest to deal with the threat that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, their capability, their future capability of threatening us, the neighbors, the regional stability with them, and that we had a responsibility as the United States to deal with a threat of this kind." (CNN's "Early Edition," 12/18/98)

Albright Argued Saddam's Pursuit Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction And His Insistence On Lifting Economic Sanctions Was An "Incompatible Position." ALBRIGHT: "The purpose of it ... is to degrade Saddam Hussein's ability to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors. And the targets are related to that. They're going after weapons of mass destruction facilities, after military facilities, command and control security. ... [T]his is because Saddam Hussein has insisted that he wants to keep his weapons of mass destruction and have sanctions lifted, a clearly incompatible position." (NBC's Today, 12/18/98)

Albright Said The Risk That Rogue State Leaders Like Saddam "Will Use Nuclear, Chemical Or Biological Weapons Against Us Or Our Allies Is The Greatest Security Threat We Face." ALBRIGHT: "Iraq is a long way from [America], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face. And it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm. In discussing Iraq, we begin by knowing that Saddam Hussein, unlike any other leader, has used weapons of mass destruction even against his own people." (CNN's "Showdown With Iraq: International Town Meeting," 2/18/98)



FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER SANDY BERGER


National Security Adviser Sandy Berger Said Saddam "Will Rebuild His Arsenal Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction, And Someday, Some Way, I Am Certain, He Will Use That Arsenal Again." BERGER: "Some have suggested that we should basically turn away. We should close our eyes to this effort to create a safe haven for weapons of mass destruction. But imagine the consequences if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act. Saddam will be emboldened believing the international community has lost its will. He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, and someday, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again as he has 10 times since 1983." (CNN's "Showdown With Iraq: International Town Meeting," 2/18/98)

Berger: "In The 21st Century, The Community Of Nations May See More And More Of This Very Kind Of Threat That Iraq Poses Now, A Rogue State With Biological And Chemical Weapons." (CNN's "Showdown With Iraq: International Town Meeting," 2/18/98)

Berger Claimed It Was "Up To Saddam To Decide Whether He Wants Sanctions Relief By Giving Up His Weapons Of Mass Destruction." BERGER: "[I]n December, Saddam Hussein once again broke his commitment to cooperate with the U.N. inspectors, ignoring our warnings. The United States, together with our British allies, responded with military force. We attacked Iraq's program to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction and his capacity to threaten his neighbors, but we have not eliminated the danger and our resolve to curb the threat Saddam poses will not diminish. … It is up to Saddam to decide whether he wants sanctions relief by giving up his weapons of mass destruction." (Sandy Berger, Remarks To Carnegie Endowment Non-Proliferation Conference, Washington, DC, 1/12/99)

Berger: "I Think The Question Is Whether, Ultimately, Iraq Will Get Rid Of Its Weapons Of Mass Destruction." (CBS' This Morning, 11/16/98)



OTHER HIGH OFFICIALS IN THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION


Former Secretary Of State Warren Christopher Said Saddam Developed And Used WMD And Sponsored "Countless Acts Of Terrorism." "The record is, unfortunately, all too clear. Saddam has threatened and invaded his neighbors, developed and used weapons of mass destruction, sponsored countless acts of terrorism, and for the last two decades, he has relentlessly persecuted the Kurds and the Shiites. When Saddam tests the will and resolve of the international community, our response must be and will be forceful and immediate." (Warren Christopher, Remarks In Washington, DC, 9/3/96)

U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson Linked Saddam To Anthrax, VX And Botulism, Warning Those Weapons Might "Get In The Hands Of Terrorists That Saddam Is Supporting." RICHARDSON: "We're [sic] what the American people want: contain Saddam Hussein from going after his neighbors, but also, go after these deadly weapons of anthrax, VX, botulisms, some that are very, very big threats to future generations of children, not just in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, but around the world, if they get in the hands of terrorists that Saddam is supporting." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 2/18/98)



Richardson: "Facts Are Facts. Iraq Has Been Deceiving The International Community With The Weaponization Of Nerve Gas. It's That Simple." (Michel Leclercq, "UN Inspector Says Iraq Equipped Weapons With Lethal Gas," Agence France Presse, 6/24/98)



State Department Spokesman Jamie Rubin: Saddam Had "Relentlessly Deceived And Obstructed Efforts ... To Identify And Destroy Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction." RUBIN: "[W]e have a lot of experience dealing with Saddam Hussein. For over seven years, their leadership has relentlessly deceived and obstructed efforts by the international community to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein has misled fellow Arab leaders about his intention to invade Kuwait. He lied to UNSCOM when he said that he did not weaponize VX ... Iraq's leadership has never expressed regret or remorse for his past actions, which include gassing his own people and invading Kuwait. We do not believe he has renounced his aggression or using the most ruthless and barbaric means to achieve it." (Jamie Rubin, State Department Press Briefing, 11/10/98)



Rubin: "If We Fail To Act, He Will Feel Emboldened To Threaten The Region Further, Armed With Weapons Of Mass Destruction." RUBIN: "Saddam Hussein is not an abstract threat. He has fired Scuds at his neighbors, attacked Kuwait, used chemical weapons on Iran and his own people. UNSCOM has shown, through its work, that he developed massive quantities of chemical and biological weapons and weaponized those weapons for delivery by Scud missiles. He has still not accounted for all these dangerous weapons. ... [I]f he continues to block UNSCOM and we do not respond, he will be able to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction in a matter of months, not years. And if we fail to act, he will feel emboldened to threaten the region further, armed with weapons of mass destruction." (Jamie Rubin, State Department Press Briefing, 11/10/98)



Former Clinton Adviser Rahm Emanuel Called It "Insulting" That Anyone Would Question Clinton's '98 Airstrikes "Given Everything Saddam Has Done." EMANUEL: "And I think that if you really look at this, Larry, that it is wrong, and I think it's insulting to the American people's intelligence, insulting to the men and women and professional professors [sic?] in our country, and I think it's detrimental to our foreign policy to really kind of question why we would go, given everything that Saddam Hussein has done over the years. We gave him one last chance." (CNN's Larry King Live, 12/16/98)



DURING THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, LEADING DEMOCRAT SENATORS CAUTIONED AMERICANS ABOUT THE THREAT POSED BY IRAQ'S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION


In 1998, Sen. Carl Levin And Twenty-Six Other Senators Urged President Clinton "To Take Necessary Actions" In Response To Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction Programs. LEVIN: "Mr. President, today, along with Senators McCain, Lieberman, Hutchison and twenty-three other Senators, I am sending a letter to the President to express our concern over Iraq's actions and urging the President 'after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.'" (Sen. Carl Levin, Congressional Record, 10/9/98)



Fourteen Democrats, Including Then-Senate Democrat Leader Tom Daschle And 2004 Presidential Nominee John Kerry, Signed The Letter To President Clinton: ("Letter To President Clinton," as Entered Into The Congressional Record By Sen. Carl Levin, 10/9/98)

Carl Levin (D-Mich.) Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.)
Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) Chris Dodd (D-Conn.)
Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.) Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)
Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) Thomas Daschle (D-S.D.)
John Breaux (D-La.) Tim Johnson (D-S.D.)
Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) Mary Landrieu (D-La.)
Wendell Ford (D-Ky.) John Kerry (D-Mass.)



Former Senate Democrat Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) Warned Of The Danger Of Saddam's Weapons Of Mass Destruction. DASCHLE: "Iraq's actions pose a serious and continued threat to international peace and security. It is a threat we must address.... Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people. It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction." (Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, 2/12/98)

After The 1998 Bombing Of Iraq, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) Warned Against "Partisan Finger-Pointing" And Said Saddam Was "Too Dangerous ... To Be Given Carte Blanche With Weapons Of Mass Destruction." "We had to attack. [President Clinton] had to do what his military advisors told him he should do,' said Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. ... [A]dded Reid, 'Now is not the time for second-guessing or partisan finger-pointing. National security concerns must come first.' Saddam Hussein ‘is too dangerous of a man to be given carte blanche with weapons of mass destruction,' he added." (Brendan Riley, "Nevada Leaders React To Iraq Bombing," The Associated Press, 12/26/98)

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) Argued That Saddam "Obviously" Was Working, "Secretly And Otherwise," On Weapons Of Mass Destruction. KERRY: "Mr. President, over the years, a consensus has developed within the international community that the production and use of weapons of mass destruction has to be halted. We and others worked hard to develop arms control regimes toward that end, but obviously Saddam Hussein's goal is to do otherwise. Iraq and North Korea and others have made it clear that they are still trying, secretly and otherwise, to develop those weapons." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/10/98)



Kerry Said Saddam Used Weapons Of Mass Destruction In The Past And Wanted "To Try ... To Continue To Do So." "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. ... It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis." (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 2/23/98)



Following A Briefing By Clinton Administration Officials, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) Said Saddam's "Chemical And Biological Weapons Capabilities" Were "Frightening." "At a Capitol Hill briefing Tuesday night, administration officials showed that ‘Saddam Hussein continues to be clear threat to the security of the region and to many of our allies,' Durbin said. ‘His chemical and biological weapons capabilities are frightening. We have to take his refusal to allow inspections very seriously.'" (Dori Meinert, "Durbin To Support Limited Approval For Military Force Against Iraq," Copley News Service, 2/4/98)

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) Believed The Peace Of "Much Of The World" Was At Risk If Iraq Was Allowed To Protect Its "Biological, Chemical And Nuclear Weapons." "'Time and time again Iraq has flouted the efforts of our nation and the international community to bring peace to the Persian Gulf,' said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va. ‘With the peace of the region and, and in fact, much of the world at risk, we cannot allow Iraq to continue its maneuvers designed to protect such a dangerous buildup of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.'" (John Raby, "Congressmen Support U.S. Bombing Of Iraq," The Associated Press, 12/16/98)

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.): "Saddam Hussein's Weapons Of Mass Destruction Programs And The Means To Deliver Them Are A Menace To International Peace And Security." LEVIN: "Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs and the means to deliver them are a menace to international peace and security. They pose a threat to Iraq's neighbors, to U.S. forces in the Gulf region, to the world's energy supplies, and to the integrity and credibility of the United Nations Security Council." (Sen. Carl Levin, Congressional Record, 2/12/98)



Levin Spoke Of Gallons Of Anthrax And Tons Of VX, Noting Iraq Had Denied Possessing Such Weapons. LEVIN: "[I]t was only after there was a defector, Saddam Hussein's own son- in-law defected and said, look here, here, here, and here that then Iraq said oh, yes, we have 2100 gallons of anthrax. By the way, one spore, less than a drop of anthrax kills within days. 2100 gallons and then the U.N. went in and destroyed that. Same thing with the chemical VX; 3.9 million tons of this chemical. One drop kills instantaneously -- was denied by Iraq. The U.N. ... believes that he has 20 tons plus more of VX and six thousand gallons more of anthrax." (CNN's Larry King Live, 2/16/98)



Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) Issued Grave Warnings About Iraq's WMD, Citing Chemical And Biological Weapons As Well As Anthrax-Tipped Missiles. "First and foremost, an Iraq left free to develop weapons of mass destruction would pose a grave threat to our national security. The current regime in Iraq has ... displayed a callous willingness to use chemical weapons to achieve its aims. Recently, we have heard chilling reports of possible biological weapons experiments on humans. An UNSCOM Inspector has spoken of information that points to a secret biological weapons production facility. And Ambassador Richard Butler has told us that Iraq could well have missile warheads filled with anthrax capable of striking Tel Aviv. An asymmetric capability of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons gives an otherwise weak country the power to intimidate and blackmail." (Sen. Joseph Biden, Congressional Record, 2/12/98)

Due To Saddam's Efforts To Assemble Biological, Nuclear And Chemical Weapons, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) Argued In 1999 That Clinton "Ended The Bombings Too Soon." "Senator Schumer is taking issue with several recent decisions of the Clinton administration on Middle Eastern affairs, despite his close association with the president and first lady. ... Schumer said America should renew its bombing campaign against Iraq ... A renewed bombing campaign against Iraq would show Saddam Hussein the price he must pay for his lack of cooperation and would inhibit Iraq's ability to assemble biological, nuclear and chemical weapons, Mr. Schumer said. 'The president ended the bombings too soon.'" (Uriel Heilman, "Schumer Says Clinton Should Resume Bombing Targets In Iraq," Forward, 1/29/99)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) Warned That Military Action Against Saddam's Regime "Must Deal A Major Setback" To Iraq's "Weapons Of Mass Destruction Program." "Feinstein also said that for the attack against Iraq to be successful, the air strikes must ‘destroy the weapons of mass-destruction facilities and supplies that the thwarted inspections were designed to find...' ‘At the very least,' she added, ‘Operation Desert Fox must deal a major setback to the weapons of mass destruction program that has been in development by Saddam Hussein.'" (Stephen Green, "Feinstein Initially Questioned Attack's Timing," Copley News Service, 12/17/98)



DRAWING UPON INTELLIGENCE PROVIDED BY TWO ADMINISTRATIONS, DEMOCRAT SENATORS CONTINUED TO OPENLY DISCUSS THE DANGER POSED BY IRAQ'S WEAPONS


Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) Acknowledged Iraq Breached The 1991 Armistice Agreement By Refusing To Destroy Its Stockpiles Of Weapons. REID: "We stopped the fighting [in 1991] based on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict." (Sen. Harry Reid, Congressional Record, 10/9/02)

Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.): "We Have Known For Many Years That Saddam Hussein Is Seeking And Developing Weapons Of Mass Destruction." (Sen. Edward Kennedy, Remarks At Johns Hopkins School Of Advanced International Studies, 10/27/02)

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.): "Saddam's Existing Biological And Chemical Weapons Capabilities Pose Real Threats To America Today, Tomorrow." ROCKEFELLER: "We must eliminate that [potential nuclear] threat now before it is too late. But that isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow. … [He] is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East. He could make these weapons available to many terrorist groups, third parties, which have contact with his government. Those groups, in turn, could bring those weapons into the United States and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly." (Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Congressional Record, 10/10/02)

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) Believed Saddam's "Arsenal Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction" Represented "An Unacceptable Threat." KERRY: "The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and, obviously, as we have said, grow it. These weapons represent an unacceptable threat." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02)



Kerry: "According To The CIA's Report, All U.S. Intelligence Experts Agree That Iraq Is Seeking Nuclear Weapons. There Is Little Question That Saddam Hussein Wants To Develop Nuclear Weapons." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02)



Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) Warned That -- If Left Unchecked -- Saddam Would Continue To Increase His Unconventional Weaponry And Even Develop Nuclear Weapons. CLINTON: "In the four years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Congressional Record, 10/10/02)

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) Said Saddam Was A "Terrible Danger" To America Because Of His "Vigorous Pursuit" Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction. SCHUMER: "[It] is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and potential future support for terrorist acts and organizations, that make him a terrible danger to the people to the United States." (Sen. Charles Schumer, Congressional Record, 10/10/02)

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) Claimed To "Understand The Grave Danger Posed To America ... By Weapons Of Mass Destruction In The Hands Of A Reckless Dictator Like Saddam Hussein." "Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator, who has brought nothing but pain and suffering to the Iraqi people and threat and instability to his neighbors throughout the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. ... I understand the grave danger posed to America and the whole international community by weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a reckless dictator like Saddam Hussein." (Sen. Tom Harkin, Congressional Record, 10/10/02)

Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) Announced In 2002 That Within Five Years Saddam Would Possess "Tactical Or Theater Nuclear Weapons." BIDEN: "My view is if five years from now Saddam Hussein is in power, left unfettered with $5 billion to $7 billion a year to pursue his weapons, he will be a grave danger to us, in the sense that he will intimidate the area and we will be unwilling to go after him because he'll have tactical or theater nuclear weapons." (CNN's Larry King Live, 10/9/02)

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) Simply Stated: "There Is No Question That Iraq Possesses Biological And Chemical Weapons." DODD: "There is no question that Iraq possesses biological and chemical weapons and that he seeks to acquire additional weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. That is not in debate. I also agree with President Bush that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must be disarmed, to quote President Bush directly." (Sen. Chris Dodd, Congressional Record, 10/8/02)

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) Felt Saddam's Chemical And Biological Weapons Posed "A Considerable Threat To Us." NELSON: "Well, I believe he has chemical and biological weapons. I think he's trying to develop nuclear weapons. And the fact that he might use those is a considerable threat to us." (CNBC's "Tim Russert," 9/14/02)

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) Listed The Weapons At Saddam's Disposal: "Ballistic Missiles, Anthrax, Sarin Gas, VX And Smallpox." BAYH: "Today, Hussein already has ballistic missiles, anthrax, sarin gas, VX and smallpox, and he could someday soon have nuclear weapons at his disposal. As much as I wish we could ignore this threat, it is my heartfelt conviction that we cannot." (Sen. Evan Bayh, Op-Ed, "Bayh Justifies The Need For Using Force Against Iraq," The Indianapolis Star, 10/10/02)


(This document was distributed today at the Senate Republican Policy Lunch.)


9 posted on 02/23/2006 7:40:33 PM PST by dynachrome ("Where am I? Where am I going? Why am I in a handbasket?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sisku Hanne

Wow! Priceless..


10 posted on 02/23/2006 7:41:53 PM PST by Windsong (Jesus Saves, but Buddha makes incremental backups)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
Have you seen "Do As I Say" - the book on liberals' hypocrisy?

Lots of contradictions in it!

11 posted on 02/23/2006 8:03:56 PM PST by Ed_in_NJ (Who killed Suzanne Coleman?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
That's the one! Thanks so much! Plus, I get the bonus of all the other comments!

Lando

12 posted on 02/23/2006 8:05:46 PM PST by Lando Lincoln (God bless Jared Linskens and his family.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: All
I'm going to try to compile this material in some fashion. Thanks for the help. FReepers are the best.

Lando

13 posted on 02/23/2006 8:07:10 PM PST by Lando Lincoln (God bless Jared Linskens and his family.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

Comment #15 Removed by Moderator

To: Lando Lincoln

I hear 'ya! I'm bookmarking this one! :-)


16 posted on 02/23/2006 9:22:44 PM PST by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

"Do you have a link/source for that to download"

American Prowler is one of the newsletter things from American Spectator magazine. (dunno if still archived there.)


17 posted on 02/24/2006 2:43:41 PM PST by dynachrome ("Where am I? Where am I going? Why am I in a handbasket?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln

A few more:

In order to be a liberal you have to believe...

that all generalizations are false,

that there are absolutely no absolutes,

that you can be sure that nothing is certain,

that it's really bad, even evil, to make or pronounce moral judgments,

that all cultures are equal, but American culture stinks,

that all truth is relative, except the unquestionable truth of "post-modernism", which is not,

that no race, class or gender is superior, but middle class white males are clearly inferior,

that no books are superior, except, of course, those by third-world authors,

that identifying individuals by their uniqueness is "racist," but identifying them only as a member of a race is not,

that those who oppose liberalism, nomatter how thoughtful or scholarly are "racist, sexist, fascist homophobes," but those who call them such must be considered scholarly

that good economies are caused by politicians and not by entrepreneurs,

that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity,

that farmers, ranchers, hunters and fishermen don't care about nature and the long-term survival of species, but "animal rights" activists who've never been outside the city do,

that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate and in the cycles of the sun, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs,

that people who drive cars are bad, but people who ride buses or trains are good,

that people who live in single-family homes (or want to) are bad, but people who live in high-density apartments (or admit they ought to) are good,

that the thinning of forests by lumber companies and forestry workers "destroys habitat," while burning them down in their entirety by allowing unhindered forest fires makes animals "thrive,"

that American corporations' drilling for oil in "environmentally sensitive" areas is bad, but paying billions of dollars to moslem countries for their oil is better,

that the entire earth is an "environmentally sensitive" area, so no development, drilling, or building of any kind is justifiable ANYwhere,

that intolerance may be horrible, but "zero tolerance" is wonderful,

that trial lawyers are selfless heroes and doctors are overpaid,

that businessmen are parasites, but politicians and bureaucrats are not,

that people who work in the private sector are evil, but people who work in government are saints,

that a contract can mean anything any time anybody wants it to, especially if it's named "The Constitution of the United States",

that private citizens are too stupid to make their own decisions about anything, but people in government are too smart not to give them dictatorial powers over everything...

(excerpted -- or edited -- from http://freedomkeys.com/liberal2.htm )


18 posted on 02/24/2006 3:03:23 PM PST by FreeKeys (Either you're part of the solution or you're part of the government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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

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