Re: Al Queda Not Mentioned Once In Final Clinton Report

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 09:28:40 -0400, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>dickless said:
>
>> Not once, ever...
>
>> Al Qaeda absent from final Clinton report
>
>Oh, well that's that, then. Obviously Boosh couldn't be expected to
>protect the country from terrorists if Clinton didn't tell him exactly
>what to do.

Now THAT'S funny

But, you'll probably have to explain it to PajamaMoron.

[Schizoid Man]

"pyjamarama" > wrote in message

> Not once, ever...
>
> Al Qaeda absent from final Clinton report
>
> By James G. Lakely
> THE WASHINGTON TIMES


You're right. The Washington Times is a fair, balanced news source devoid of
any prejudice whatsoever.

Look, Don Evans was right. Bush has been chosen by God to lead this great
nation and the free world, and ensure that all sinners, infidels and
non-Christians burn for eternity in the hellfire of damnation. So I see
little point in debasing him, because on the mountain of virtues he's atop
the Everest summit.

If Republicans really did care about this nation, they'd seek a
constitutional amendment making him president for life. And then with the
grace of God, guns and the Bible, we'd purge the New World of the scourge of
liberalism, a plague that is a stain on humanity itself.

Did you wet your pyjamas again, rama?

[bernard spilman]

> By James G. Lakely
> THE WASHINGTON TIMES

HAH! The Washington Times. Just to the right of the
"Volkische Beobachter" on the political spectrum.
WS

[MikeSoja]

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 09:57:32 -0500, "Schizoid Man"
> posted:

>"pyjamarama" > wrote in message

>> Not once, ever...

>> Al Qaeda absent from final Clinton report

>> By James G. Lakely
>> THE WASHINGTON TIMES


>You're right. The Washington Times is a fair, balanced news source devoid of
>any prejudice whatsoever.

The full "A National Security Strategy for a Global Age", published
in December 2000, with an introduction signed by Bill Clinton, is
available online, doofus:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/nss/nss_dec2000_contents.htm

Feel free to point out any lies James Lakely or The Washington Times
told in discussing it.

Post them right here:

[golds]

"bernard spilman" > wrote in message
m...
> > By James G. Lakely
> > THE WASHINGTON TIMES
>
> HAH! The Washington Times. Just to the right of the
> "Volkische Beobachter" on the political spectrum.
> WS
>
>

No problem with the facts though...right?

[bernard spilman]

"golds" > wrote in message
...
>
> "bernard spilman" > wrote in message
> m...
> > > By James G. Lakely
> > > THE WASHINGTON TIMES
> >
> > HAH! The Washington Times. Just to the right of the
> > "Volkische Beobachter" on the political spectrum.
> > WS
> >
> >
>
> No problem with the facts though...right?

Big problem with the spin. Big problem with
the selective use of facts.
WS

[golds]

"bernard spilman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "golds" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "bernard spilman" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > > By James G. Lakely
> > > > THE WASHINGTON TIMES
> > >
> > > HAH! The Washington Times. Just to the right of the
> > > "Volkische Beobachter" on the political spectrum.
> > > WS
> > >
> > >
> >
> > No problem with the facts though...right?
>
> Big problem with the spin. Big problem with
> the selective use of facts.
> WS
>
You know it either mentioned it or it didn't. You can't spin a word count.
>

[bernard spilman]

> You know it either mentioned it or it didn't. You can't spin a word count.


I don't know what the report said. Perhaps you can post the
link to a copy of that report? I certainly don't assume the
word of Sun Yung Moon is true by any means.
WS