I chose that page for a reason. This shows right wing slant. Remove the
opinions from the report. Read only the facts. Take out the conclusions
made by the writer. There won't be much left of course because the writer
has an agenda.
The article is a review of Richard Clarke's book. The book itself has lots
of facts, too. Clinton has been interviewed, he has written a book, and he
himself disputes many of the right wing claims, especially about bin Laden
being offered up. That was just a lie told in an effort to divert attention
from GW's ineptness and lies.
---------------------------------
Booth Martin
http://www.martinvt.com
---------------------------------
-------Original Message-------
From: Open discssion among iSeries Users
Date: 07/27/04 17:57:45
To: Open discssion among iSeries Users
Subject: Re: [CPF0000] Quote
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 17:26:41 -0500 (Central Daylight Time), Booth
Martin <booth@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Start here:
>
> http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/york200403230919.asp
>
> Read it fairly. Realize it is a Right Wing source trying to defend Bush's
> failures. Read the facts, not the opinions, and you will realize
> thatClinton did more than he will ever be given credit for.
Perhaps I am missing something here . . . this piece does not present
facts that leave the Clinton administration is a good light.
It points out contradictions between what Clarke is saying now and
what Clarke said in 2002. It points out the strong words and lack
of action (other than a couple of cruise missiles) after the 1998
embassy bombings.
--
Tom Jedrzejewicz
tomjedrz@xxxxxxxxx
--
This is the Open discssion among iSeries Users (CPF0000) mailing list
To post a message email: CPF0000@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/cpf0000
or email: CPF0000-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/cpf0000.
