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

Skip to comments.

LIVE THREAD: Hillary on Hardball -- 9 PM EST
MSNBC | November 20, 2002 | Freepers

Posted on 11/20/2002 5:31:45 PM PST by Howlin

Have at it.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections; US: New York
KEYWORDS: bitch; blindambition; btch; cankles; chinless; cnt; corrupt; crustypantsonfire; dangerous; disgusting; evasion; evilwitch; fathead; fathips; greasyhair; greed; lesbian; liar; lovethesekeywords; lying; lyingseahag; oldcrusty; overbite; phony; piaps; pshycocriminal; seabiscuit; sensibleshoes; shampoochallenged; shthead; slimey; whohiredcraigl; witch; zzzzzuhwhashesay
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 681-700701-720721-740 ... 761-766 next last
To: Howlin
IF HER HUSBAND HAD GOTTEN OBL, WE WOULDN"T BE LOOKING FOR HIM NOW!!!!

Did someone ask this question? I just might have to watch this when it replays on the West Coast. With the boos I just read, I might have something to look forward to. Can't stand hearing the woman, otherwise.

701 posted on 11/20/2002 8:34:04 PM PST by swheats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
NewsMax.com ^ | April 30, 2002 | Carl Limbacher

Posted on 04/30/2002 10:23 AM PDT by Carl/NewsMax

Arkansas businesswoman Juanita Broaddrick had some advice Tuesday morning for newly minted anti-rape crusader Sen. Hillary Clinton: Before you worry about America's sexual assault victims, first clean your own house.

"It's just very bizarre," Broaddrick said, reacting to Sen. Clinton's new anti-rape legislative initiative, in an exclusive interview with NewsMax.com.

"You just wonder if she shouldn't start at home with this crusade," she added - a reference to her own ordeal at the hands of ex-president Bill Clinton, who Broaddrick says brutally raped her 24 years ago this week.

"If Hillary can accept what Bill did to me, then she shouldn't even be involved in anything like that," the Clinton rape accuser complained.

On Friday Sen. Clinton told the New York Times that she was sponsoring legislation to speed up the processing of DNA evidence against men accused of rape before they can rape again.

"We've had a steep increase in the number of reported rapes here in New York City," the New York Senator complained. "It is now apparent that unless we process this information and start putting it to use, we are likely to see people who are serial rapists continue their crimes when we could have apprehended them before they could strike again."

In her remarks to the Times, the former first lady made no mention of Broaddrick's allegation against her husband. Neither did Mrs. Clinton reference former White House volunteer Kathleen Willey's accusation that Mr. Clinton had sexually assaulted her in a 1993 White House attack.

Still, even without mentioning Mrs. Clinton's hypocrisy on the issue, the Times apparently felt her rape comments were too bizarre for hard news coverage, and buried them instead in a Monday Bob Herbert column headlined, "Weapon Against Rape." (See: Hillary in New Anti-Rape Crusade)

NewsMax's coverage of Mrs. Clinton's remarks, which included observations like, "Every two minutes somewhere in America, someone is sexually assaulted," made her the target of ridicule from the crew of radioman Don Imus Tuesday morning.

"Here she is going on about every two minutes somewhere in America someone is sexually assaulted," complained Imus gossip maven Christie Musamechi. "I wonder how many of those women are in Chappaqua" where Mr. Clinton lives.

702 posted on 11/20/2002 8:37:07 PM PST by doug from upland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swheats
No, nobody did that.......
703 posted on 11/20/2002 8:37:30 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 701 | View Replies]

To: perfect stranger
"upthread", as opposed to downthread. I understand.

I've seen other FReepers use that word a few times... IS "upthread" an actual word? LOL

704 posted on 11/20/2002 8:37:47 PM PST by nutmeg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 694 | View Replies]

To: Dixie Mom
"Honestly, I think Pelosi is a plant, a ringer for the very purpose of making Hill look more moderate. I am convinced it is part of "The Plan." "

Yep! That is exactly what is going on.
We all thought that Pelosi would reveal the truth
about the Democrats. Instead she'll make Hillary look

m o d e r a t e ?

705 posted on 11/20/2002 8:38:44 PM PST by GoldMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
ROTFL!
706 posted on 11/20/2002 8:38:45 PM PST by nutmeg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 700 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg
Was Hitlery just BOOed? ...

If this is true, the Dems should be very afraid, considering Matthews statement of polling the audience and they're all "D's" and packing the house.

707 posted on 11/20/2002 8:39:30 PM PST by swheats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Darn, I'm missing all the good threads this week. I'm going to read this whole thread though. Thanks for the ping.
708 posted on 11/20/2002 8:40:02 PM PST by Utah Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Ok but please tell there was some booing going on.
709 posted on 11/20/2002 8:41:55 PM PST by swheats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 703 | View Replies]

Comment #710 Removed by Moderator

To: swheats
Was Hitlery just BOOed? ...

If this is true, the Dems should be very afraid, considering Matthews statement of polling the audience and they're all "D's" and packing the house.

No, that was my mistake earlier. I was hopeful the boos were from conservatives in the audience. Turns out all the booing and jeering was done by anti-war protesters in the crowd. They heckled her during most of the show.

711 posted on 11/20/2002 8:48:09 PM PST by nutmeg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 707 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Q ERTY6 utter failure
\
rodham-clinton reality-check
BUMP!
 

Bush: "I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt."

Washington and the liberal media may be getting the message: George Bush is for real and he's no Mr. Nice Guy when it comes to war.

Even Newsweek's Howard Fineman, a liberal Bush-basher, has had to do a double take this week.

Writing in his column of an Oval office meeting with four U.S. Senators -- including Hillary Rodham -- Fineman described Bush "relaxed and in control."

Fineman, drawing a comparison with Winston Churchill's defiance during World War II, quoted the president as telling the Senators: "When I take action," he said, "I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive."

No doubt, Hillary must have shuddered when she heard that, a clear hit on her husband's eight years of appeasement with terrorists and their backers.

Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

[ASIDE: Have you noticed that as of the morning of 9-11-01, hillary clinton's "best memory" informs her--and she is quick to inform us -- that she was not "co-president" after all?]

 

CLINTON-WAS-AN-UTTER-FAILURE Containment Team Scheme Fails Yet Again
 
Dick Morris to Greta Van Susteren: "You're still a CNN person!"
  • Calls clinton an UTTER FAILURE IN COMBATING TERRORISM,
  • Implies that clinton is Proximate Cause of 9/11
  by Mia T

WSJ Opinion Journal

While Clinton Fiddled

A story of fecklessness in the face of terror.

BY DICK MORRIS

Tuesday, February 5, 2002 12:01 a.m. EST

As the elections of 1996 loomed, a sense of crisis pervaded America. We seemed under attack from all directions by terrorists, foreign and domestic. A bomb exploded amid the Summer Olympic Games. TWA flight 800 vaporized over the Atlantic and many suspected terror. Nineteen American soldiers died and hundreds were wounded as a bomb ripped through their barracks in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. A year before, the federal office building in Oklahoma City was destroyed, killing hundreds more. In 1993, a bomb ripped through the World Trade Center hospitalizing a thousand people and killing six.

At the White House, we held hurried meetings as we watched with worry the growth of terrorism. We polled and speculated about its possible impact on President Clinton's re-election only a few months later.

Some of the president's staff and his consultants pressed the case for aggressive action to contain terror at home and attack it abroad. But at the center of the storm, Bill Clinton sat with an unusual imperturbability. Even as he fretted about whether to sign the welfare reform act and brooded about the FBI file, Paula Jones and Whitewater scandals, he seemed curiously uninvolved in the battle against terror.

Advised that his place in history rested on eliminating the deficit, making welfare reform work, and smashing the international network of terrorists militarily and economically, he remained unusually passive. Around him, his foreign-policy advisers--particularly former trade lawyer Sandy Berger, then serving as deputy national security adviser--seemed to work overtime at opposing tough measures against terror.

When Sen. Alfonse D'Amato pushed through legislation that sought to cripple the Iranian funding of terrorism by mandating U.S. retaliation against foreign or American companies that aided its oil industry, Mr. Berger advised a veto unless the bill were amended to allow the president to waive the sanctions. When the bill passed--with the waiver--Mr. Berger successfully blocked the implementation of sanctions in virtually every case.

When Mr. Clinton was advised to pass a law requiring that driver's licenses for aliens expire when their visas do (so that a routine traffic stop could trigger the deportation process), Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes and White House adviser George Stephanopoulos worked hard to kill the idea. They derided the proposal, which called for the interface of FBI and Immigration and Naturalization Service data about illegal aliens, visa expirations and terrorist watch lists with state motor vehicle records, as racial profiling and warned that it might alienate Mr. Clinton's political base. Had the idea been adopted, suicide bomber Mohamed Atta would have been subject to deportation when he was stopped for driving without a license, three months before Sept. 11, 2001.

President Clinton refused to adopt proposals that he establish a "president's list" of seemingly charitable groups that were really fund-raising fronts for terrorists, to warn Americans to stay away. Despite evidence from a 1993 FBI wiretap that the Homeland Foundation was raising money for the terrorist group Hamas, Mr. Clinton did not seize its assets, and the group functioned until President Bush closed it down.

Despite staff and consultant recommendations that he require baggage X-ray screening, federalization of air security checkpoints, and restoration of air marshals to commercial flights, Mr. Clinton did nothing to implement any of these proposals. Vice President Al Gore also failed to embrace them when his Commission on Air Safety made its recommendations in 1997. It required Sept. 11 to get these common-sense initiatives adopted.

After the February 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, President Clinton never visited the site and only alluded to it once in his regular Saturday radio address right after the bombing. Visiting New Jersey shortly after the attack, he urged Americans not to "overreact."

After the 1993 bombing--the first attack by foreign terrorists on U.S. soil--Mr. Clinton never met privately with the head of the CIA for the ensuing two years! Because of this lack of presidential focus, the investigation proceeded so slowly that we did not know of Osama bin Laden's involvement until 1996. As a result, the U.S. turned down Sudan's offer to give us the terrorist mastermind on a silver platter because we said that we lacked evidence on which to hold him.

Even when the Saudis stonewalled our investigation of the Riyadh bombing and handicapped the FBI by beheading those it suspected of involvement without permitting their interrogation, Mr. Clinton never criticized the kingdom publicly or, in my presence, privately.

When advisers proposed an oil embargo against Iran, the president did nothing, despite evidence that the Riyadh bombers had Iranian backing. At the time, Iran's daily oil production of three million barrels could have been offset by an expected increase of 1.5 million barrels in world-wide production (which proved conservative). In addition, the Saudis repeatedly and publicly indicated their commitment to "price stability," signaling their willingness to increase production to help fill the shortfall and avoid a price runup.

Republicans deserve their share of the blame as well. After the Oklahoma City attack, President Clinton made an eminently sensible, if somewhat limited, set of recommendations to the GOP-dominated Congress. But, because the Oklahoma City terrorists were right-wing extremists, Republicans looked askance at reasonable ideas like permitting roving wiretaps on terror suspects--subsequently adopted when Mr. Bush proposed it--and attaching tagents to identify the origin of explosives.

The real question, however, is why Mr. Clinton was so tentative in the war on terror. Everything else seemed to come first. He wouldn't toughen immigration enforcement because he feared a backlash from his political base. He waived sanctions against companies doing business with Iran because he worried about European reaction. There was no effort to cut off the flow of money to terror fronts because Janet Reno raised civil libertarian concerns. (Mr. Clinton did freeze the Hamas assets, but since they didn't maintain accounts in their own name, it netted no money.)

Bill Clinton revealed himself as a man of the 20th century while Mr. Bush has understood that Sept. 11, 2001, marked the beginning of a new era. In Bill Clinton's epoch, terror was primarily a criminal justice problem which must not be allowed to get in the way of the "real" foreign-policy issues--relations with Russia and China and the dynamics of the Western alliance. Indeed, if Mr. Clinton had any personal stamp on foreign policy, it was the subordination of military and security issues to economic concerns.

Terrorists fit into the scheme about the same way drug traffickers did--they were deplored, to be sure, and, where possible without undue inconvenience or loss of life, even attacked. But they hardly occupied center stage in our foreign policy.

Now, we all know better.

Mr. Morris, a Fox News political commentator, was an adviser to President Clinton.

Wall Street Journal
 
THE BILL'S COMING DUE
 
Clinton's Legacy
He didn't do enough to stop terrorists.
 
BY RUSH LIMBAUGH
Thursday, October 4, 2001 12:01 a.m. EDT
 
Since the Sept. 11 massacre, there have been numerous press reports
about Bill Clinton's attendance at funerals, visits to the rescue site,
and his other activities as a former president. What the media have
largely overlooked is the extent to which Mr. Clinton can be held
culpable for not doing enough when he was commander in chief to combat
the terrorists who wound up attacking the World Trade Center and
Pentagon. If we're serious about avoiding past mistakes and improving
national security, we can't duck some serious questions about Mr.
Clinton's presidency.
 
Osama bin Laden already had the blood of Americans on his hands before
Sept. 11. He was reportedly behind the World Trade Center bombing that
killed six; the killing of 19 soldiers at the Khobar Towers in Saudi
Arabia; the bombings of the embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, which
killed 226 people, including 12 Americans; and the attack on the USS
Cole at Aden, Yemen, killing 17 seamen.
 
Mr. Clinton and his former national security adviser, Sandy Berger,
said after Sept. 11 that they had come within an hour of killing bin
Laden when they launched cruise missiles against his camps in 1998.
(Mr.
Clinton also ordered the destruction of a pharmaceutical plant in
Sudan.) Many saw this attack as a diversion from domestic
embarrassments, because it took place only three days after his grand
jury testimony in the Paula Jones case. On Sept. 24, National Review
Online published a report by Byron York that added considerable weight
to this last charge.
 
Mr. York spoke recently to retired Gen. Anthony Zinni, who had been
U.S. commander in the region. Although he supported the cruise missile
attack, the general revealed it was a "million-to-one-shot." "There was
a possibility [bin Laden] could have been there. . . . My
intelligence people did not put a lot of faith in that." His
recollection is a far cry from the version of Messrs. Clinton and
Berger. Which is accurate?
 
On Sept. 13, the Associated Press disclosed that "in the waning days of
the Clinton presidency, senior officials received specific intelligence
about the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and weighed a military plan to
strike the suspected terrorist mastermind's location. The
administration opted against an attack." The possible attack was
discussed at a meeting last December, which was prompted by "eyes-only
intelligence" about bin Laden's location. A military strike option was
presented at the meeting. There was debate about whether the
intelligence was reliable. In the end, the president decided against
it.
 
The day after AP's story, Hillary Clinton gave a different explanation
of events to CNN. She said that in the last days of her husband's
administration, he planned to kill bin Laden, but that his location
couldn't be pinpointed: "It was human assets, that is, people on the
ground, who provided the information. My memory is that those assets
proved unreliable and were not able to form the basis of the plan that
we were considering launching."
 
Exactly what "eyes-on intelligence" was provided to Mr. Clinton in
December? And just how reliable did the information have to be to merit
a military strike? When Mr. Clinton ordered an attack on bin Laden's
camps in August 1998, Gen. Zinni said that it was a "million-to-one
shot."
 
A partial answer can be found in a Sept. 27 report by Jane's
Intelligence Digest, whose sources "suggested that previous plans to
capture or kill [bin Laden], which were supported by Moscow, had been
shelved by the previous U.S. administration on the grounds that they
might end in humiliating failure and loss of U.S. service personnel."
As a Jane's source put it: "Before the latest catastrophe there was a
distinct lack of political will to resolve the bin Laden problem and
this had a negative impact on wider intelligence operations."
 
Jane's claimed that the fundamental failure to deal with al Qaeda was
due "to a political reluctance to take decisive action during the
Clinton era, mainly because of a fear that it might derail the
Israeli-Palestinian peace process. This was "combined with a general
complacency in Washington towards warnings that the U.S. itself (as
opposed to U.S.
facilities and personnel abroad) might be targeted."
 
President Bush is now leading a world-wide war against terrorism,
focused presently on bin Laden, al Qaeda, and their Taliban sponsors.
It has been widely noted that the U.S. is handicapped in this war by a
lack of good "Humint"--human intelligence--about the terrorists. Here
again the Clinton administration is culpable.
 
In 1995 CIA Director John Deutsch imposed complex guidelines that made
it more difficult to recruit informants who had committed human-rights
violations. Therefore, while the Justice Department has been able to
use former mobsters to get mobsters (e.g. Sammy "the Bull" Gravano, who
killed 19, was the government's key witness against John Gotti), the CIA
has been discouraged from recruiting former terrorists to get
terrorists. This has made infiltrating groups like al Qaeda virtually
impossible.
 
We have no choice but to address the policies and decisions, made at the
very highest level of our government, which helped bring us to this
point. To do otherwise is to be irresponsible and unprepared in the
face of a ruthless enemy, whose objective is to kill many more
Americans.
 
Mr. Limbaugh is a nationally syndicated radio talk show host.
 
 

Andrew Sullivan: The damage Clinton did

...The September 11 massacre resulted from a fantastic failure on the part of the United States government to protect its citizens from an act of war. This failure is now staring us in the face and, if the errors are to be rectified, it is essential to acknowledge what went wrong.

Two questions come to mind: how was it that the Osama Bin Laden network, known for more than a decade, was still at large and dangerous enough this autumn to inflict such a deadly blow? Who was responsible in the government for such a failure of intelligence, foreign policy and national security? These questions have not been asked directly, for good reasons.

There is a need to avoid recriminations at a time of national crisis. But at the same time, the American lack of preparedness that Tuesday is already slowing the capacity to bring Bin Laden to justice by constricting military and diplomatic options. And with a president just a few months in office, criticism need not extend to the young administration that largely inherited this tattered security apparatus.

Whatever failures of intelligence, security or diplomacy exist, they have roots far deeper than the first nine months of this year. When national disasters of unpreparedness have occurred in other countries...ministers responsible have resigned. Taking responsibility for mistakes in the past is part of the effort not to repeat them. So why have heads not rolled?

The most plausible answer is that nobody has been fired because this attack was so novel and impossible to predict that nothing in America's security apparatus could have prevented it. The only problem with this argument is that it is patently untrue. Throughout the Clinton years, this kind of attack was not only predictable but predicted. Not only had Bin Laden already attacked American embassies and warships, he had done so repeatedly and been completely frank about his war. He had even attempted to destroy the World Trade Center in 1993. Same guy, same building. ...

The decision to get down and dirty with the terrorists, to take their threat seriously and counter them aggressively, was simply never taken. Many bear the blame for this: Warren Christopher, the clueless, stately former secretary of state; Anthony Lake, the tortured intellectual at the National Security Council; General Colin Powell, whose decision to use Delta Force units in Somalia so badly backfired; but, above all, former president Bill Clinton, whose inattention to military and security matters now seems part of the reason why America was so vulnerable to slaughter.

Klein cites this devastating quote from a senior Clinton official: "Clinton spent less concentrated attention on national defence than any other president in recent memory. He could learn an issue very quickly, but he wasn't very interested in getting his hands dirty with detail work. His style was procrastination, seeing where everyone was, before taking action. This was truer in his first term than in the second, but even when he began to pay attention he was constrained by public opinion and his own unwillingness to take risks."It is hard to come up with a more damning description of negligence than that.

 

Clinton even got a second chance. In 1998, after Bin Laden struck again at US embassies in Africa, the president was put on notice that the threat was deadly. He responded with a couple of missile strikes against Afghanistan and Sudan, some of which missed their targets and none of which seriously impacted on Osama Bin Laden...

If the security manager of a nuclear power plant presides over a massive external attack on it, then it's only right that he should be held responsible, in part, for what happened. More than 6,000 families are now living with the deadly consequences of the negligence of the government of the United States. There is no greater duty for such a government than the maintenance of national security, and the protection of its own citizens.

When a senior Clinton official can say of his own leader that he "spent less concentrated attention on national defence than any other president in recent memory", and when this administration is followed by the most grievous breach of domestic security in American history, it is not unreasonable to demand some accounting...

We thought for a long time that the Clinton years would be seen, in retrospect, as a mixed blessing. He was sleazy and unprincipled, we surmised, but he was also competent, he led an economic recovery, and he conducted a foreign policy of multilateral distinction.

But the further we get away from the Clinton years, the more damning they seem. The narcissistic, feckless, escapist culture of an America absent without leave in the world was fomented from the top. The boom at the end of the decade turned out to include a dangerous bubble that the administration did little to prevent.

The "peace-making" in the Middle East and Ireland merely intensified the conflicts. The sex and money scandals were not just debilitating in themselves - they meant that even the minimal attention that the Clinton presidency paid to strategic military and intelligence work was skimped on.

We were warned. But we were coasting. And the main person primarily entrusted with correcting that delusion, with ensuring America's national security - the president - was part of the problem.

Through the dust clouds of September 11, and during the difficult task ahead, one person hovers over the wreckage - and that is Bill Clinton. His legacy gets darker with each passing day.

 

Clinton's Failure to Confront Iraq
Allan J. Favish
 
 
Iraqi Complicity in the World Trade Center Bombing and
Beyond by Laurie Mylroie, which was published in June of this year and discusses the 1993 bombing of the WTC.
 
She explains how Bill Clinton intentionally failed to confront Iraq over its complicity in the bombing and other attacks.
 
She supported Clinton in 1992 having been an advisor on Iraq policy to the 1992 Clinton presidential campaign, as you can see at
http://admissions.geneseo.edu/cgi-bin/nrap?Roemer98.html
 
Her September 13, 2001 article in the Wall Street Journal on the recent attack is at
http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=95001120
 
In a live interview on Los Angeles radio station KPFK, broadcast around noon today, PST, she stated that Clinton lied about more than sex; he lied about national security.
 
I wish somebody would ask her about whether she thinks the Clinton administration covered up Iraqi involvement in the murder of those aboard TWA 800 and ordered the military not to pursue the attackers.
 
 
 

 

 

712 posted on 11/20/2002 8:48:12 PM PST by Mia T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Quixdraw4440
Sorry, Quixdraw... I just see a red X.
713 posted on 11/20/2002 8:48:48 PM PST by nutmeg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 710 | View Replies]

To: swheats
Oh, booing for sure, but NOT conservatives. The liberals were booing her..........LOL.
714 posted on 11/20/2002 8:50:49 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 709 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg
"Is "upthread" an actual word?"It is to me.
715 posted on 11/20/2002 8:52:18 PM PST by perfect stranger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 704 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
MIDI - DEVIL IN DISGUISE

(I've been warning you...I've been warning you)

She looks like she’s evil…acts like she’s evil…talks like she’s evil
Come on, get wise…she’s the devil with big thighs
That’s Hillary-y…devil with big thighs…oh, yeah

I have called her Satan’s Daughter…that should be clear to all
One more person agrees with me…ask Mary Sheila Gall

She looks like she’s evil…acts like she’s evil…talks like she’s evil
Come on, get wise…she’s the devil with big thighs
That’s Hillary-y…devil with big thighs…oh, yeah

If she’s given much more power…our nation’s gonna fail
She’ll be laughing right in your face...showing her horns and tail

She looks like she’s evil…acts like she’s evil…talks like she’s evil
Come on, get wise…she’s the devil with big thighs
That’s Hillary-y…devil with big thighs…oh, yeah

Devil with big thi-ighs…oh, yes, she is
Devil with big thi-ighs…oh, yes, she is
Devil with big thi-ighs…oh, yes, she is

716 posted on 11/20/2002 8:55:58 PM PST by doug from upland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

717 posted on 11/20/2002 8:56:15 PM PST by swheats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 714 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Craig "Flinstone" Livingstone was let off the hook by FBI FREEH regarding the FBI Files that he illegally purloined. Even him just "looking" at ONE file could have caused him to have to appear in court!
718 posted on 11/20/2002 9:01:41 PM PST by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: swheats
Matthews' ratings are below 0.5, no one watching. Safe for "Hill"......
719 posted on 11/20/2002 9:02:35 PM PST by col kurz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 717 | View Replies]

To: Eric Esot
West Coast Rerun bump.

It's on again.
720 posted on 11/20/2002 9:02:52 PM PST by John Lenin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 609 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 681-700701-720721-740 ... 761-766 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