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

Skip to comments.

Lieberman Warns of Potential Constitutional Crisis over Iraq
Joe Lieberman ^ | 2/16/07 | Joe Lieberman

Posted on 02/16/2007 2:37:46 PM PST by bnelson44

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 16, 2007

Contact:

Marshall Wittmann, 202-224-4041

Lieberman Warns of Potential Constitutional Crisis over Iraq

Urges Unity in War Against Islamist Extremism

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- In a statement on the Senate floor today concerning the non-binding Iraq resolution, Senator Lieberman stated:

"The non-binding resolution before us today, we all know, is only a prologue. That is why the fight over it - procedural and substantive - over these past weeks has been so intense. It is the first skirmish in an escalating battle that threatens to consume our government over many months ahead, a battle that will neither solve the sprawling challenges we face in Iraq nor strengthen our nation to defeat the enemies of our security throughout the world from Islamist extremists. That is to say, in our war against the terrorists that attacked us.

We still have a choice not to go down this path - it's a choice that goes beyond the immediate resolution before the Senate - a chance to step back from the brink and find a better way to express and arbitrate our opinion, and I hope we will seize the moment and take that chance."

Senator Lieberman called for nonpartisan cooperation:

"Whatever our opinion of this war or its conduct, it is in no one's interest to stumble into a debilitating confrontation between our two great branches of government over war powers. The potential for a constitutional crisis here and now is real, with congressional interventions, presidential vetoes, and Supreme Court decisions. If there was ever a moment for nonpartisan cooperation to agree on a process that will respect both our personal opinions about this war and our nation's interests over the long term, this is it.

We need to step back from the brink and reason together, as Scripture urges us to do, about how we will proceed to express our disagreements about this war."

Senator Lieberman argued that the non binding resolution, "proposes nothing. It contains no plan for victory or retreat... It is a strategy of "no," while our soldiers are saying, "yes, sir" to their commanding officers as they go forward into battle."

Senator Lieberman closed with a call for unity, "Whatever our differences here in this chamber, about this war, let us never forget the values of freedom and democracy that unite us and for which our troops have given and today give the last full measure of their devotion. Yes, we should vigorously debate and deliberate. That is not only our right, it is our responsibility. But at this difficult juncture, at this moment when a real battle, a critical battle is being waged in Baghdad, as we face a brutal enemy who attacked us on 9/11 and wants to do it again, let us not just shout at one another, but let us reach out to one another to find that measure of unity that can look beyond today's disagreements and secure the nation's future and the future of all who will follow us as Americans."

Below is the entire text of the speech as prepared for delivery -

Mr. President, when the roll is called tomorrow on the motion for cloture with regard to the resolution that the House is expected to pass tonight on Iraq, I will vote no. I will vote against cloture. I will do so not because I wish to stifle debate - the fact is that debate has occurred, is occurring now, and will continue to occur, on our policy in Iraq. I will vote against cloture because I feel so strongly against the resolution. It condemns the new plan for success in Iraq, I support that plan.

From all of the research my staff and I have done, including asking the Library of Congress to do, we have found no case in American history where Congress has done what this resolution does. That is, in a non-binding resolution, oppose a plan that our military is implementing right now. Congress has expressed non-binding resolutions of disapproval before a plan of military action has been carried out. Congress has taken much more direct steps, authorized to do so by the Constitution, to cut off funds for military action or a war in progress.

But never before has the Congress of the United States passed a non-binding resolution of disapproval of a military plan that is already being carried out by American military personnel. I believe it's a bad precedent and that's why I will do everything I can to oppose it. And in the immediate context, that means that I will vote against cloture.

Mr. President, more broadly, we are approaching an important moment in the history of this institution and of our republic—a moment, I fear, that future historians will look back to and see the beginning of a cycle that not only damaged the remaining possibilities for success in Iraq, but established political precedents that weakened the power of the presidency to protect the American people over the long term.

The non-binding resolution before us today, we all know, is only a prologue. That is why the fight over it - procedural and substantive - over these past weeks has been so intense. It is the first skirmish in an escalating battle that threatens to consume our government over many months ahead, a battle that will neither solve the sprawling challenges we face in Iraq nor strengthen our nation to defeat the enemies of our security throughout the world from Islamist extremists. That is to say, in our war against the terrorist that attacked us.

We still have a choice not to go down this path— it's a choice that goes beyond the immediate resolution before the Senate - a chance to step back from the brink and find a better way to express and arbitrate our opinion, and I hope we will seize the moment and take that chance.

As we meet in this chamber today, the battle for Baghdad has already begun. One of our most decorated generals, David Petreaus —whom this Senate confirmed eighty-one to nothing—has taken command in Baghdad. And thousands of American soldiers have moved out across the Iraqi capital, putting their lives on the line as they put a new strategy into action.

We can now see for ourselves, on the ground in Iraq and Baghdad, where it matters, what this new strategy looks like—and we can see why it is different from all that preceded it.

For the first time in Baghdad, our primary focus is no longer on training Iraqi forces or chasing down insurgents or providing for our own force protection, though those remain objectives. Our primary focus is on ensuring basic security for the Iraqi people, working side by side with Iraqi security forces—exactly what classic counterinsurgency doctrine tells us must be our first goal now.

Where previously there were not enough troops to hold the neighborhoods cleared of insurgents, now more troops are either in place or on the way.

Where previously American soldiers were based on the outskirts of Baghdad, unable to secure the city, now they are living and working side-by-side with their Iraqi counterparts on small bases that are being set up right now throughout the Iraqi capital.

At least six of these new joint bases have already been established in the Sunni neighborhoods in west Baghdad—the same neighborhoods where just a few weeks ago, jihadists and death squads held sway. In the Shiite neighborhoods of east Baghdad, American troops are also moving in, with their Iraqi counterparts—and Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army are moving out.

We do not know if this new strategy for success in Iraq will work over the long term—and we probably will not know for some time. The Mahdi Army may be in retreat for the moment, but they are not defeated. They have gone to ground, and they are watching. Our hope is that our determination and that of the Iraqi government will lead them now to devote themselves to politics instead of death squads. But that, only time will tell.

The fact is, any realistic assessment of the situation in Iraq tells us that we must expect that we must expect that there will be more attacks, and there will be more casualties in the months ahead, as the enemies of a free and independent Iraq see the progress we are making and adapt to try to destroy it with more violence.

The question they will try to pose to us - which is the question that is posed every time a fanatic suicide bomb goes off and that person expresses their hatred of everyone else more than their love of their own life by ending their own life - the question is: Will we yield Baghdad, Iraq, the Middle East, our own future, to those fanatical suicide bombers?

But we must also recognize that we are in a different place in Iraq from where we were just a month ago, because of the implementation of this new strategy.

We are in a stronger position today to provide basic security in Baghdad—and with that, we are in a stronger position to marginalize the extremists and strengthen the moderates; a stronger position to foster the economic activity that will drain the insurgency and the militias of their public support; a stronger position to press the Iraqi leaders to make the political compromises that everyone acknowledges are necessary.

John Maynard Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind."

Mr. President, in the real world, in just the past month, the facts in Iraq have changed—and they are changing still. And I would ask my colleagues to allow themselves to wait and consider changing their minds as further facts unfold in Iraq.

The non-binding resolution before us is not about stopping a hypothetical plan. It is about disapproving a plan that is being carried out now by our fellow Americans in uniform, in the field. In that sense, as I have said, it is unprecedented in Congressional history, in American history. This resolution is about shouting into the wind. It is about ignoring realities of what's happening on the ground in Baghdad.

It proposes nothing. It contains no plan for victory or retreat. It proposes nothing. It is a strategy of "no," while our soldiers are saying, "yes, sir" to their commanding officers as they go forward into battle.

And that is why I will vote against the resolution by voting against cloture.

I understand the frustration, anger, and exhaustion that so many Americans, so many members of Congress, feel about Iraq, the desire to throw up one's hands and simply say, "Enough." And I am painfully aware of the enormous toll of this war in human life—and of the mistakes that have been made in the war's conduct.

But let us now not make another mistake. In the midst of a fluid and uncertain situation in Iraq, we should not be so bound up in our own arguments and disagreements, so committed to the positions we have staked out, that the political battle over here takes precedence over the real battle over there. Whatever the passions of the moment, the point of reference for our decision-making should be military movements on the battlefields of Iraq, not political maneuverings in the halls of Congress.

Even as our troops have begun to take Baghdad back step-by-step, there are many in this Congress who have nevertheless already reached a conclusion about the futility of America's cause there, and declared their intention to put an end to this mission not with one direct attempt to cutoff funds, but step by political step. No matter what the rhetoric of this resolution, that is the reality of the moment. This non-binding measure before us is a first step toward a constitutional crisis that we can and must avoid.

Let me explain what I mean by a constitutional crisis.

Let us be clear about the likely consequences if we go down this path beyond this non-binding resolution. Congress has been given constitutional responsibilities. But the micro-management of war is not one of them. The appropriation of funds for war is.

I appreciate that each of us here has our own ideas about the best way forward in Iraq, I respect those that take a different position than I, and I understand that many feel strongly that the President's strategy is the wrong one. But the Constitution, which has served us now for more than two great centuries of our history, creates not 535 commanders-in-chief, but one—the President of the United States, who is authorized to lead the day to day conduct of war.

Whatever our opinion of this war or its conduct, it is in no one's interest to stumble into a debilitating confrontation between our two great branches of government over war powers. The potential for a constitutional crisis here and now is real, with congressional interventions, presidential vetoes, and Supreme Court decisions. If there was ever a moment for nonpartisan cooperation to agree on a process that will respect both our personal opinions about this war and our nation's interests over the long term, this is it.

We need to step back from the brink and reason together, as Scripture urges us to do, about how we will proceed to express our disagreements about this war.

We must recognize that, while the decisions we are making today and we are about to make seem irretrievably bound up in the immediacy of the moment and the particular people now holding positions of power in our government, these decisions will set constitutional precedents that will go far beyond this moment and these people. President Bush has less than two years left in office, and a Democrat may well succeed him. If we do not act thoughtfully in the weeks and months ahead, we will create precedents that future Congresses, future Presidents, and future generations of Americans will regret.

Right now, as the battle for Baghdad begins, this institution is deeply divided. However, we should not allow our divisions to lead us to a constitutional crisis in which no one wins and our national security is greatly damaged. We are engaged, as all my colleagues know, in a larger war against a totalitarian enemy - Islamist extremism and terrorism - that seeks to vanquish all of the democratic values that it is our national purpose to protect and defend.

Whatever our differences here in this chamber about this war, let us never forget the values of freedom and democracy that unite us and for which our troops have given and today give the last full measure of their devotion. Yes, we should vigorously debate and deliberate. That is not only our right, it is our responsibility. But at this difficult juncture, at this moment when a real battle, a critical battle is being waged in Baghdad, as we face a brutal enemy who attacked us on 9/11 and wants to do it again, let us not just shout at one another, but let us reach out to one another to find that measure of unity that can look beyond today's disagreements and secure the nation's future and the future of all who will follow us as Americans.

I thank the chair and I yield the floor.

-30-

Senator Joe Lieberman's Homepage


TOPICS: Government; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: iraq; lieberman
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last
To: bnelson44
Very good speech. But it makes NO difference al Qaeda won the last election and the members of al Qaeda in the US Senate and US House are determined to put the American people under the yoke of Islam.

The war is lost. How can we as Americans survive after the anti-American pig faced Nazi scum Democrats have surrendered?
21 posted on 02/16/2007 2:56:33 PM PST by YOUGOTIT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44
As always, the 'rats cannot help themselves. They must destroy Bush.

Lieberman is possibly the only semi-sane 'rat left.

22 posted on 02/16/2007 2:57:30 PM PST by doorgunner69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YOUGOTIT
The war is lost. How can we as Americans survive after the anti-American pig faced Nazi scum Democrats have surrendered?

If a democrat is elected in 2008, along with a democratic house and senate, it may very well be the end of America.

We'll be headed the same way as Venezuela.

23 posted on 02/16/2007 3:00:41 PM PST by EvilOverlord (Socialism makes workers into slaves and couch potatoes into kings)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: doorgunner69

He's not even a Democrat anymore.


24 posted on 02/16/2007 3:01:54 PM PST by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Rather, it's going to be a rather bloody civil war, and if we're lucky, this time we'll come out of it without any more Democrats.

Good thing the Libs are against gun ownership. Sort of guarantees there won't be dems left.

25 posted on 02/16/2007 3:03:05 PM PST by FatherofFive (Choose life!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FatherofFive

There is a larger enemy rising to exploit our weakness and division, the very one that did everything in its power to engender it . . .

PUTIN'S MUNICH SPEECH
by J. R. Nyquist

President Vladimir Putin’s recent speech before the Munich Conference on Security Policy created something of a sensation. Putin criticized NATO expansion and U.S. foreign policy in a way reminiscent of the old Soviet enemy. In response, the Secretary General of NATO expressed disappointment mixed with the hope that a way around Putin’s remarks could be navigated. Former security advisor to three U.S. presidents, Brent Scowcroft, said Putin’s speech was “obnoxious,” but noted the fact that Putin was still ready to cooperate with the United States. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates responded dismissively by saying that “one cold war was quite enough” while President Bush assured his countrymen that Russia and America would continue to work together.
What did Putin say in his speech that created such a stir?

At the outset of his speech, Putin said: “This conference’s structure allows me to avoid excessive politeness and the need to speak in roundabout, pleasant but empty diplomatic terms. This conference’s format will allow me to say what I really think about international security problems.” A statement of this kind, in the mouth of a former KGB officer and current-day dictator, invariably prefigures deception. Though he may reveal certain truths, the Russian president would hardly give out his real thinking, because such giving out would deflate his speech from pedestrian obnoxiousness to hair-raising predatory cynicism. A man who orders the assassination of dissident journalists cannot afford to expose his grim thought process to normal people. This is because Mr. Putin is not normal. He is a KGB-man. He is a “Soviet person.” And his achievements – if one credits them at all – are not really his own. The military science, sociology and economic thinking behind Russia’s reemergence is the achievement of hidden organizers, secret KGB and CPSU structures. Putin is the creature of these structures, whatever his exact status or real power. There is a hidden Russian establishment and Putin is their visible representative, not to be confused with the type of president we find in Western countries. Neither should we confuse Russia’s political system with any other, as it is uniquely Asiatic. It is a system that relies on a secret army of informants and provocateurs, on coordination between organized crime and the police, on controlled opposition and double agents, on false fronts and Potemkin villages. In this context, the last thing you are going to hear from a Russian leader is what he “really thinks.” What you hear from his lips is something calculated. However crude or initially ineffective it may seem, it is psychologically weighed in advance. The statements of Russian statesmen are part of Russian strategy.

According to Putin, “It is well known that international security comprises much more than issues relating to military and political stability. It involves the stability of the global economy, overcoming poverty, economic security and developing a dialogue between civilizations.” Putin is appealing to the wounded feelings of the poor countries, and to the “liberal guilt” of the rich countries. The formula of rich nations versus poor nations is fundamental to his strategy. Class warfare, the most fundamental concept in all of Marxism, is being pushed to the front. Here is a weapon for rallying the majority of countries. Think of the global situation as follows: there is war, and on one side are the poor. On the other side are the rich. It is in this context that President Putin quotes U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who said: “When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger.” It is something that Roosevelt said at the outset of World War II. This remark, says Putin, “remains topical today.”

Putin is saying that we are at the outset of another world war. Only this time, America is the aggressor country. America is the main threat to the security of the planet. All the world must now either bend to “one master, one sovereign,” or resist. Putin does not aim these words at America or Europe, even though he says them before an assembly of American and European leaders. He aims his words at the Arab world, at Africa, Asia and Latin America. He is telling them that America wants to tyrannize the planet “contrary to democracy,” that America’s pose of teaching others democracy is sheer hypocrisy. “Those who would teach us,” he says, “do not want to learn themselves.”

The global dominance of the United States is unacceptable, says Putin. It leads to war and mass slaughter. “Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts,” claims Putin. “We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?”
Putin is appealing to the growing anti-Americanism that decades of Bolshevik propaganda have cultivated around the world. He defies the hegemonic power to its face. He pretends to speak for developing world, including the Arab World. After all, he is about to visit Saudi Arabia. The two great oil-producing countries, Russia and Arabia are drawing together. Energy strategy is part of Russia’s grand strategy. In his address, Putin is warning OPEC against a grave danger. He says that international law can no longer protect them. The Americans can and will invade you. But you have a powerful alternative to America. The unwritten subtext is that Russia and its allies (like China, India and Brazil) have the economic clout and military strength to turn the tables on America and on Europe too. “The combined GDP,” noted Putin, “measured in purchasing power parity of countries such as India and China is already greater than that of the United States. And a similar calculation with the GDP of the BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia, India and China – surpasses the cumulative GDP of the EU. And according to experts this gap will only increase in the future.” If America wants an arms race, bring it on. Russia is ready and preparing to rearm in a big way, as the Russian defense minister announced a short while ago. And Russia has the wealth to overtake its nemesis.

According to Putin, the Americans themselves are responsible for the terrorist and WMD situation on the planet. American hypocrisy, says Putin, even extends to nuclear non-proliferation because America’s threatening domination “encourages a number of countries to acquire weapons of mass destruction.” It is America’s fault if North Korea and Iran are building a nuclear arsenal. The Americans have provoked it themselves. One has to ask, says Putin, why the Americans are bombing and shooting people at this stage in the game? After all, Russia has become a democracy! What is the problem here? Have the Americans lost faith in the power of culture and democratic values?

And what has happened to the arms control and disarmament process? Well, says Putin, the Americans have trashed this process. “Russia intends to strictly fulfill the obligations it has taken on [in terms of arms control treaties]. We hope our partners [i.e., the Americans] will also act in a transparent way and will refrain from laying aside a couple of hundred superfluous nuclear warheads for a rainy day. And if today the new American defense secretary declares that the United States will not hide these superfluous weapons in warehouses or, as one might say, under a pillow or blanket, then I suggest we all rise and greet this declaration standing. It would be a very important declaration.”

Putin’s totalitarianism is hidden, just as the secret structures that brought him to power were hidden during the Yeltsin presidency. The totalitarian mind is a paranoid mind. It builds its position on lies and hatches plots of destruction, fully expecting that its main enemy is doing likewise. When Putin suggests the United States wants to hide nuclear weapons “under a pillow,” he is confessing that Russia has done much more. In fact, Russia has thousands of nuclear weapons that are hidden and unaccounted for (according to the late Bill Lee, a leading U.S. intelligence expert). Russia has broken nearly ever treaty is has signed. Anyone who follows the newspapers closely enough will recall stories about chemical, nuclear and biological weapons violations of existing treaties. And now that Russia is helping Iran to develop a nuclear arsenal it is almost laughable when Putin says to his listeners in Munich: “Russia strictly adheres to and intends to further adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as well as the multilateral supervision regime for missile technologies.” The Russian president is not series. He is cynical, and counts on the cynicism of his Third World comrades.
Putin does hint that Russia will have to break out of the INF Treaty, restricting medium-range nuclear missiles. These are the weapons Russia used to threaten Europe in the 1980s. These were considered the most destabilizing weapons of their time. One should imagine the shudders going through the European statesmen at the meeting.

But the reaction from America was weak. There was no Winston Churchill ready to say that Russia was still a threat, and Russia was breaking its treaties while preparing for war. By undoing the blunder of the Iron Curtain, Russia’s new totalitarianism is sleek, selective, and deceptively open. The West has become economically entangled in its web. One might argue there is freedom in Russia, if it wasn’t for the elimination of so many journalists – like Paul Klebnikov and Anna Politkovskaya (not to mention the radioactive poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in London). The methods for squashing dissent are more precise today, with the added benefit of plausible deniability. Some observers have compared Putin’s speech to Churchill’s Fulton Speech. Some have said that Putin was declaring a new Cold War. But there was nothing new in Putin’s speech. Top Russian leaders and representatives of the regime have said many of the same things time and time again. Besides, Putin already declared war on the United States after the Beslan massacre. He accused the United States of being behind the terrorists in Russia.

Russia is therefore on the march, and has been on the march for some time.



26 posted on 02/16/2007 3:07:48 PM PST by Iconoclast2 (Two wings of the same bird of prey . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Rather, it's going to be a rather bloody civil war, and if we're lucky, this time we'll come out of it without any more Democrats.

It won't be luck that rids us of Democrats. It will be good aim.
27 posted on 02/16/2007 3:12:06 PM PST by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Southside_Chicago_Republican

For later.


28 posted on 02/16/2007 3:12:15 PM PST by Southside_Chicago_Republican (NoBama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44
I agree with Senator Libermann that we are facing a grave Constitutional crisis in the not too distant future. I think it will tear the fabric of some of our noble institution. I also agree with him that we should do everything we can to avoid this disastrous showdown.

One sure fire way to send a message to the DemocRATS and let them know that their treasonous behavior is not acceptable would be for Libermann to formerly switch allegiance to the Republican party. Desperate times call for drastic measures.

Your move Senator Libermann.
29 posted on 02/16/2007 3:13:43 PM PST by daviscupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

The sheeple knew in November what would happen if Pelosi & Co took over... I spit on them.


30 posted on 02/16/2007 3:13:46 PM PST by johnny7 ("We took a hell of a beating." -'Vinegar Joe' Stilwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44

Come on over Joe, we dont agree on much but we do on national security.


31 posted on 02/16/2007 3:13:55 PM PST by mware (By all that you hold dear.. on this good earth... I bid you stand! Men of the West!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog
I don't think they ever thought we would have a political party in power who has become so deranged by hatred for one man.... George W. Bush....that they would risk a full blown Constitutional Crisis

I don't think that their deranged hatred is limited to one man. I think they would be equally hateful of any Republican in the White House who did not do and say every single thing they wanted. George W. just happens to eb the man in that position right now.
32 posted on 02/16/2007 3:14:14 PM PST by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: FatherofFive

That will be the one time they would support the troops...


33 posted on 02/16/2007 3:20:33 PM PST by xmission (Dont isn't a strategy, Freedom isn't Free, Dems encourage our enemy,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44

The time for praying and preparing is now. The time for action may be just around the corner.


34 posted on 02/16/2007 3:21:08 PM PST by basil (Exercise your Second Amendment rights--buy another gun today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EvilOverlord

Just a part of the lesson that the self rightious conservatives, who sat out '06 and will sit out '08, are teaching everybody. A special thank you goes out to them, because without their help, it's doubtful the country would be as screwed as it is and moreso after '08.


35 posted on 02/16/2007 3:23:55 PM PST by Mr. Keys
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: FatherofFive
Well, at least there won't be anymore of those pesky "hard core Liberals" ~ you can almost guarantee that.

And RINOs? Watch them deny they were anything other than conservatives.

36 posted on 02/16/2007 3:25:00 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: basil

cheap source for .308s?


37 posted on 02/16/2007 3:25:39 PM PST by xmission (Dont isn't a strategy, Freedom isn't Free, Dems encourage our enemy,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak
They hate us too. Always have. We're the ones who escaped our mother's wombs, intact and alive.

Nothing a Democrat hates more than someone like that.

The coming civil war is strictly self-defense.

38 posted on 02/16/2007 3:26:03 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: basil

The Dems are far more dangerous to our country than any outside power. Let's hope the voting populace will see that and wise up. Problem is, Dems know how to pitch to the rabble who only think of what someone will give them. Their constituency is growing faster than our's. I am very concerned.


39 posted on 02/16/2007 3:26:48 PM PST by gobus1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Keys

Needs to be repeated a million times over. Thank you selfish dumbasses that sat out the last elections to teach the GOP a lesson. Thank you. Elections have consequences and we are all going to be put in mortal danger at this rate by the party of jackassses.


40 posted on 02/16/2007 3:28:15 PM PST by jrooney ( Hold your cards close.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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