Shoes for Journalists

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

I think we should start a new charity program, shoes for journalists. This program would be designed to make sure that no journalist was ever without shoes to throw at self-important people and politicians (redundant I know, just for clarity eh?)

---

Actually, the program I've heard of is to have everyone send a shoe to Bush's library.The ridiculousness I saw was that Bush never dropped that shit-eating grin off his face. Is there nothing too serious for him to snicker at?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Jazzns writes:

quote:

---

The only foreign terrorist attack on US soil in decades happened on his watch.

---

Ahem. The first World Trade Center bombing was in 1993. It's why the Clinton Administration was so focused on Al Qaeda: They had attacked us once before.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

onifre writes:

quote:

---

TIME MAG CHARGES: BUSH ADMIN 'DELAYED' CLINTON PLAN TO ATTACK AL QAEDA

---

Ahem. Freepers? You're using freepers as a source? You can reject everything they say out of hand:

quote:

---

the Clinton Administration did not order an American retaliation for the attack.

---

This is simply a lie. The Clinton administration did not deny operations on bin Laden.Not once.What was denied were actions on old intelligence that couldn't be trusted. Isn't that what we've been arguing for? Not going to war over sexed-up intelligence?Need I remind you of the December 1999 Memorandum of Notification authorizing the CIA to use lethal force to capture bin Laden?And notice the contradiction: The same people complaining about Clinton supposedly not trying to get bin Laden are the same people who claim that the air strike against bin Laden in August of 1998 (that only missed because bin Laden changed his plans at the last minute, leaving the target area literally just a couple hours before the strike) was nothing but a "wag the dog" action because of Lewinsky.You can't have it both ways. This is why freepers are rejected out of hand.And note the conflation of time regarding the USS Cole: It happened a month before the election. We didn't know who did it. We still don't because Yemen has stonewalled the investigation. Those complaining about it would seem to be upset that we were not psychic.Haven't we been complaining about a war that was started on no evidence? And now we're complaining that Clinton didn't start a war because we didn't have any evidence?You don't get to have it both ways.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.