Ann Coulter: If Only Bin Laden Had A Stained Blue Dress



 Religions > Atheism > Ann Coulter: If Only Bin Laden Had A Stained Blue Dress

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 6

1

 

2

 

3

 

4

 

5

 

6

 
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: "Sound of Trumpet"
Date: 24 Sep 2006 07:43:37 PM
Object: Ann Coulter: If Only Bin Laden Had A Stained Blue Dress
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1700984/posts
If Only Bin Laden Had a Stained Blue Dress... (Ann Coulter)
HUMAN EVENT ^ | 09/13/2006 | By Ann Coulter
Posted on 09/13/2006 3:41:07 PM PDT by oxcart
If you wonder why it took 50 years to get the truth about Joe McCarthy,
consider the fanatical campaign of the Clinton acolytes to kill an ABC
movie that relies on the 9/11 commission report, which whitewashed only
90 percent of Clinton's cowardice and incompetence in the face of
terrorism, rather than 100 percent.
Islamic jihadists attacked America year after year throughout the
Clinton administration. They did everything but blow up his proverbial
"bridge to the 21st century." Every year but one, Clinton found an
excuse not to fight back.
The first month Clinton was in office, Islamic terrorists with
suspected links to al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein bombed the World Trade
Center.
For the first time ever, a terrorist act against America was treated
not as a matter of national security, but exclusively as a simple
criminal offense. The individual bombers were tried in a criminal
court. (The one plotter who got away fled to Iraq, that peaceful haven
of kite-flying children until Bush invaded and turned it into a nation
of dangerous lunatics.)
In 1995 and 1996, various branches of the Religion of Peace -
al-Qaida, Hezbollah and the Iranian "Party of God" - staged car bomb
attacks on American servicemen in Saudi Arabia, killing 24 members of
our military in all. Each time, the Clinton administration came up with
an excuse to do nothing.
Despite the Democrats' current claim that only the capture of Osama bin
Laden will magically end terrorism forever, Clinton turned down Sudan's
offer to hand us bin Laden in 1996. That year, Mohamed Atta proposed
the 9/11 attack to bin Laden.
Clinton refused the handover of bin Laden because - he said in taped
remarks on Feb. 15, 2002 - "(bin Laden) had committed no crime
against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on
which to hold him." Luckily, after 9/11, we can get him on that
trespassing charge.
Although Clinton made the criminal justice system the entire U.S.
counterterrorism strategy, there was not even an indictment filed after
the bombing of either Khobar Towers (1996) or the USS Cole (2000).
Indictments were not filed until after Bush/Ashcroft came into office.
Only in 1998 did the Clinton-haters ("normal people") force Clinton
into a military response. Solely because of the Monica Lewinsky
scandal, Clinton finally lobbed a few bombs in the general direction of
Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
In August 1998, three days after Clinton admitted to the nation that he
did in fact have "sex with that woman," he bombed Afghanistan and
Sudan, doing about as much damage as another Clinton fusillade did to a
blue Gap dress.
The day of Clinton's scheduled impeachment, Dec. 18, 1998, he bombed
Iraq. This accomplished two things: 1) It delayed his impeachment for
one day, and 2) it got a lot of Democrats on record about the
monumental danger of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass
destruction.
So don't tell me impeachment "distracted" Clinton from his aggressive
pursuit of terrorists. He never would have bombed anyone if it weren't
for the Clinton-haters.
As soon as Clinton was no longer "distracted" by impeachment, he went
right back to doing nothing in response to terrorism. In October 2000,
al-Qaida bombed the USS Cole, killing 17 sailors and nearly sinking the
ship.
Clinton did nothing. This is only an abbreviated list of Clinton's
surrender to Islamic savagery. For a president who supposedly stayed up
all night "working" and hated vacations, Clinton sure spent a lot of
time sitting around on his butt while America was being attacked.
According to Rich Miniter, author of "Losing Bin Laden," Clinton's top
national security advisers made the following classic Democrat excuses
for doing nothing in response to the Cole attack:
Attorney General Janet Reno "thought retaliation might violate
international law and was therefore against it."
CIA Director George Tenet "wanted more definitive proof that bin Laden
was behind the attack, although he personally thought he was."
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright "was concerned about the reaction
of world opinion to a retaliation against Muslims and the impact it
would have in the final days of the Clinton Middle East peace process."
(How did that turn out, by the way? Big success, I take it? Everybody
over there all friendly with one another?)
Secretary of Defense William Cohen "did not consider the Cole attack
'sufficient provocation' for a military retaliation."
Less than a year after Clinton's final capitulation to Islamic
terrorists, they staged the largest terrorist attack in history on U.S.
soil. The Sept. 11 attack, planning for which began in the '90s,
followed eight months of President Bush - but eight years of Bill
Clinton.
Clinton's own campaign adviser on Iraq, Laurie Mylroie, says Clinton
and his advisers are "most culpable" for the intelligence failure that
allowed 9/11 to happen.
Now, after five years of no terrorist attacks in America, Democrats are
hoping we'll forget the consequences of the Democrat strategy of doing
nothing in response to terrorism and abandon the Bush policies that
have kept this nation safe since 9/11. But first, they need to rewrite
history.
.

User: "Dick Cheneys Asshole"

Title: Re: Ann Coulter: If Only Bin Laden Had A Stained Blue Dress 24 Sep 2006 11:19:11 PM
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> wrote in
news:1159145017.790422.295830@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1700984/posts


If Only Bin Laden Had a Stained Blue Dress... (Ann Coulter)

HUMAN EVENT ^ | 09/13/2006 | By Ann Coulter


Posted on 09/13/2006 3:41:07 PM PDT by oxcart



If you wonder why it took 50 years to get the truth about Joe McCarthy,
consider the fanatical campaign of the Clinton acolytes to kill an ABC
movie that relies on the 9/11 commission report, which whitewashed only
90 percent of Clinton's cowardice and incompetence in the face of
terrorism, rather than 100 percent.
Islamic jihadists attacked America year after year throughout the
Clinton administration. They did everything but blow up his proverbial
"bridge to the 21st century." Every year but one, Clinton found an
excuse not to fight back.

The first month Clinton was in office, Islamic terrorists with
suspected links to al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein bombed the World Trade
Center.

For the first time ever, a terrorist act against America was treated
not as a matter of national security, but exclusively as a simple
criminal offense. The individual bombers were tried in a criminal
court. (The one plotter who got away fled to Iraq, that peaceful haven
of kite-flying children until Bush invaded and turned it into a nation
of dangerous lunatics.)

In 1995 and 1996, various branches of the Religion of Peace -
al-Qaida, Hezbollah and the Iranian "Party of God" - staged car bomb
attacks on American servicemen in Saudi Arabia, killing 24 members of
our military in all. Each time, the Clinton administration came up with
an excuse to do nothing.

Despite the Democrats' current claim that only the capture of Osama bin
Laden will magically end terrorism forever, Clinton turned down Sudan's
offer to hand us bin Laden in 1996. That year, Mohamed Atta proposed
the 9/11 attack to bin Laden.

Clinton refused the handover of bin Laden because - he said in taped
remarks on Feb. 15, 2002 - "(bin Laden) had committed no crime
against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on
which to hold him." Luckily, after 9/11, we can get him on that
trespassing charge.

Although Clinton made the criminal justice system the entire U.S.
counterterrorism strategy, there was not even an indictment filed after
the bombing of either Khobar Towers (1996) or the USS Cole (2000).
Indictments were not filed until after Bush/Ashcroft came into office.

Only in 1998 did the Clinton-haters ("normal people") force Clinton
into a military response. Solely because of the Monica Lewinsky
scandal, Clinton finally lobbed a few bombs in the general direction of
Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

In August 1998, three days after Clinton admitted to the nation that he
did in fact have "sex with that woman," he bombed Afghanistan and
Sudan, doing about as much damage as another Clinton fusillade did to a
blue Gap dress.

The day of Clinton's scheduled impeachment, Dec. 18, 1998, he bombed
Iraq. This accomplished two things: 1) It delayed his impeachment for
one day, and 2) it got a lot of Democrats on record about the
monumental danger of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass
destruction.

So don't tell me impeachment "distracted" Clinton from his aggressive
pursuit of terrorists. He never would have bombed anyone if it weren't
for the Clinton-haters.

As soon as Clinton was no longer "distracted" by impeachment, he went
right back to doing nothing in response to terrorism. In October 2000,
al-Qaida bombed the USS Cole, killing 17 sailors and nearly sinking the
ship.

Clinton did nothing. This is only an abbreviated list of Clinton's
surrender to Islamic savagery. For a president who supposedly stayed up
all night "working" and hated vacations, Clinton sure spent a lot of
time sitting around on his butt while America was being attacked.

According to Rich Miniter, author of "Losing Bin Laden," Clinton's top
national security advisers made the following classic Democrat excuses
for doing nothing in response to the Cole attack:


Attorney General Janet Reno "thought retaliation might violate
international law and was therefore against it."

CIA Director George Tenet "wanted more definitive proof that bin Laden
was behind the attack, although he personally thought he was."

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright "was concerned about the reaction
of world opinion to a retaliation against Muslims and the impact it
would have in the final days of the Clinton Middle East peace process."
(How did that turn out, by the way? Big success, I take it? Everybody
over there all friendly with one another?)

Secretary of Defense William Cohen "did not consider the Cole attack
'sufficient provocation' for a military retaliation."
Less than a year after Clinton's final capitulation to Islamic
terrorists, they staged the largest terrorist attack in history on U.S.
soil. The Sept. 11 attack, planning for which began in the '90s,
followed eight months of President Bush - but eight years of Bill
Clinton.

Clinton's own campaign adviser on Iraq, Laurie Mylroie, says Clinton
and his advisers are "most culpable" for the intelligence failure that
allowed 9/11 to happen.

Now, after five years of no terrorist attacks in America, Democrats are
hoping we'll forget the consequences of the Democrat strategy of doing
nothing in response to terrorism and abandon the Bush policies that
have kept this nation safe since 9/11. But first, they need to rewrite
history.

You are right on there friend. And don't these damn liberals froth at the
mouth when you tell em like it is? heh heh.
D-C-A
.

User: "Geoff"

Title: Re: Ann Coulter: If Only Bin Laden Had A Stained Blue Dress 24 Sep 2006 07:59:42 PM
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:1159145017.790422.295830@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1700984/posts


If Only Bin Laden Had a Stained Blue Dress... (Ann Coulter)

....then perhaps the neocons would give a flying ***** about finding him.
.
User: "George"

Title: Re: Ann Coulter: If Only Bin Laden Had A Stained Blue Dress 25 Sep 2006 12:11:30 AM
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:7K2dnQNOZOtntIrYnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@comcast.com...

"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:1159145017.790422.295830@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1700984/posts


If Only Bin Laden Had a Stained Blue Dress... (Ann Coulter)


...then perhaps the neocons would give a flying ***** about finding him.

Good one, Geoff! Maybe he can dress up as a native American chief, then
Ken Ley would become interested in soliciting him for campaign funds in
return for a spanking new Jihad Casino on the Mississippi.
George
.
User: "Gunner"

Title: Re: Ann Coulter: If Only Bin Laden Had A Stained Blue Dress 25 Sep 2006 12:43:59 AM
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 01:11:30 -0400, "George" <george@yourservice.com>
wrote:


"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:7K2dnQNOZOtntIrYnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@comcast.com...

"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:1159145017.790422.295830@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1700984/posts


If Only Bin Laden Had a Stained Blue Dress... (Ann Coulter)


...then perhaps the neocons would give a flying ***** about finding him.


Good one, Geoff! Maybe he can dress up as a native American chief, then
Ken Ley would become interested in soliciting him for campaign funds in
return for a spanking new Jihad Casino on the Mississippi.

George

Or he could dress up in Traditional New Orleans garb and the Levey
Boards could use the money they should have spent on the levies and use
him as an attraction for a brand spanking new casino..well..one of the
new ones, in New Orleans?
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the ***** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
.
User: "George"

Title: Re: Ann Coulter: If Only Bin Laden Had A Stained Blue Dress 25 Sep 2006 02:02:19 AM
"Gunner" <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:n1reh25cc43c7iirqki5r3vhuivifccla1@4ax.com...

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 01:11:30 -0400, "George" <george@yourservice.com>
wrote:


"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:7K2dnQNOZOtntIrYnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@comcast.com...

"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:1159145017.790422.295830@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1700984/posts


If Only Bin Laden Had a Stained Blue Dress... (Ann Coulter)


...then perhaps the neocons would give a flying ***** about finding him.


Good one, Geoff! Maybe he can dress up as a native American chief, then
Ken Ley would become interested in soliciting him for campaign funds in
return for a spanking new Jihad Casino on the Mississippi.

George

Or he could dress up in Traditional New Orleans garb and the Levey
Boards could use the money they should have spent on the levies and use
him as an attraction for a brand spanking new casino..well..one of the
new ones, in New Orleans?

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the ***** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

I doubt that New Orleans needs the kind of people he would attract.
George
.



User: ""

Title: Re: Ann Coulter: If Only Bin Laden Had A Stained Blue Dress 27 Sep 2006 12:20:39 PM
In misc.survivalism Geoff <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:


If Only Bin Laden Had a Stained Blue Dress... (Ann Coulter)

...then perhaps the neocons would give a flying ***** about finding him.

No good American really cares much about Bin Laden. I don't.
.


User: "Too_Many_Tools"

Title: Re: Ann Coulter: If Only Bin Laden Had A Stained Blue Dress 24 Sep 2006 11:23:31 PM
Ann is just pissed that the stained blue dress isn't hers....can't
blame her....angry women make terrible lovers.
Why do Republicans have such a hangup about sex...maybe because they
just are not getting any?
Meanwhile Osama Bin Forgotten is laughing his butt off as to how stupid
Bush is and those who voted for him.
Listen.....can't you hear it?
Laugh....laugh....laugh....
TMT
Sound of Trumpet wrote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1700984/posts


If Only Bin Laden Had a Stained Blue Dress... (Ann Coulter)

HUMAN EVENT ^ | 09/13/2006 | By Ann Coulter


Posted on 09/13/2006 3:41:07 PM PDT by oxcart



If you wonder why it took 50 years to get the truth about Joe McCarthy,
consider the fanatical campaign of the Clinton acolytes to kill an ABC
movie that relies on the 9/11 commission report, which whitewashed only
90 percent of Clinton's cowardice and incompetence in the face of
terrorism, rather than 100 percent.
Islamic jihadists attacked America year after year throughout the
Clinton administration. They did everything but blow up his proverbial
"bridge to the 21st century." Every year but one, Clinton found an
excuse not to fight back.

The first month Clinton was in office, Islamic terrorists with
suspected links to al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein bombed the World Trade
Center.

For the first time ever, a terrorist act against America was treated
not as a matter of national security, but exclusively as a simple
criminal offense. The individual bombers were tried in a criminal
court. (The one plotter who got away fled to Iraq, that peaceful haven
of kite-flying children until Bush invaded and turned it into a nation
of dangerous lunatics.)

In 1995 and 1996, various branches of the Religion of Peace -
al-Qaida, Hezbollah and the Iranian "Party of God" - staged car bomb
attacks on American servicemen in Saudi Arabia, killing 24 members of
our military in all. Each time, the Clinton administration came up with
an excuse to do nothing.

Despite the Democrats' current claim that only the capture of Osama bin
Laden will magically end terrorism forever, Clinton turned down Sudan's
offer to hand us bin Laden in 1996. That year, Mohamed Atta proposed
the 9/11 attack to bin Laden.

Clinton refused the handover of bin Laden because - he said in taped
remarks on Feb. 15, 2002 - "(bin Laden) had committed no crime
against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on
which to hold him." Luckily, after 9/11, we can get him on that
trespassing charge.

Although Clinton made the criminal justice system the entire U.S.
counterterrorism strategy, there was not even an indictment filed after
the bombing of either Khobar Towers (1996) or the USS Cole (2000).
Indictments were not filed until after Bush/Ashcroft came into office.

Only in 1998 did the Clinton-haters ("normal people") force Clinton
into a military response. Solely because of the Monica Lewinsky
scandal, Clinton finally lobbed a few bombs in the general direction of
Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

In August 1998, three days after Clinton admitted to the nation that he
did in fact have "sex with that woman," he bombed Afghanistan and
Sudan, doing about as much damage as another Clinton fusillade did to a
blue Gap dress.

The day of Clinton's scheduled impeachment, Dec. 18, 1998, he bombed
Iraq. This accomplished two things: 1) It delayed his impeachment for
one day, and 2) it got a lot of Democrats on record about the
monumental danger of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass
destruction.

So don't tell me impeachment "distracted" Clinton from his aggressive
pursuit of terrorists. He never would have bombed anyone if it weren't
for the Clinton-haters.

As soon as Clinton was no longer "distracted" by impeachment, he went
right back to doing nothing in response to terrorism. In October 2000,
al-Qaida bombed the USS Cole, killing 17 sailors and nearly sinking the
ship.

Clinton did nothing. This is only an abbreviated list of Clinton's
surrender to Islamic savagery. For a president who supposedly stayed up
all night "working" and hated vacations, Clinton sure spent a lot of
time sitting around on his butt while America was being attacked.

According to Rich Miniter, author of "Losing Bin Laden," Clinton's top
national security advisers made the following classic Democrat excuses
for doing nothing in response to the Cole attack:


Attorney General Janet Reno "thought retaliation might violate
international law and was therefore against it."

CIA Director George Tenet "wanted more definitive proof that bin Laden
was behind the attack, although he personally thought he was."

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright "was concerned about the reaction
of world opinion to a retaliation against Muslims and the impact it
would have in the final days of the Clinton Middle East peace process."
(How did that turn out, by the way? Big success, I take it? Everybody
over there all friendly with one another?)

Secretary of Defense William Cohen "did not consider the Cole attack
'sufficient provocation' for a military retaliation."
Less than a year after Clinton's final capitulation to Islamic
terrorists, they staged the largest terrorist attack in history on U.S.
soil. The Sept. 11 attack, planning for which began in the '90s,
followed eight months of President Bush - but eight years of Bill
Clinton.

Clinton's own campaign adviser on Iraq, Laurie Mylroie, says Clinton
and his advisers are "most culpable" for the intelligence failure that
allowed 9/11 to happen.

Now, after five years of no terrorist attacks in America, Democrats are
hoping we'll forget the consequences of the Democrat strategy of doing
nothing in response to terrorism and abandon the Bush policies that
have kept this nation safe since 9/11. But first, they need to rewrite
history.

.

User: "raven1"

Title: Re: Ann Coulter: If Only Bin Laden Had A Stained Blue Dress 24 Sep 2006 09:24:27 PM
On 24 Sep 2006 17:43:37 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> wrote:

If Only Bin Laden Had a Stained Blue Dress...

....then the Repugs might spend 1/100th of the effort they spent on
persecuting Bill Clinton into actually bringing him to justice.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.

User: "Winston Smith"

Title: Re: Ann Coulter: If Only Bin Laden Had A Stained Blue Dress 25 Sep 2006 09:50:20 PM
On 24 Sep 2006 17:43:37 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> wrote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1700984/posts
If Only Bin Laden Had a Stained Blue Dress... (Ann Coulter)
The first month Clinton was in office, Islamic terrorists with
suspected links to al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein bombed the World Trade
Center.

When Bush had only been in office NINE months and left 9-11 happen, we
were told it wasn't the poor babies fault. His evil predecessor, one
Mr. Clinton, didn't leave any warnings, or defense plans, or fresh
coffee, or anything - and how do you expect the Shrub to come up with
his own? It's all his predecessors fault. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Shrub didn't even have time for his coffee to cool off.
OK, then, when Clinton was only in office ONE month and got attacked,
shouldn't we blame Papa Bush? Same logic.
With eight months longer to get security working, Bush should have
been right on top of things. Unless of course he wanted 'a
galvanizing event'? Naw.
--
W§ mostly in m.s - http://members.1stconnect.com/anozira
.
User: "George"

Title: Re: Ann Coulter: If Only Bin Laden Had A Stained Blue Dress 27 Sep 2006 09:27:16 AM
"Winston Smith" <bogus@buttterfly.net> wrote in message
news:m15hh25ssrovtvbhrhg4u86tqg1seeg9nm@4ax.com...

On 24 Sep 2006 17:43:37 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> wrote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1700984/posts
If Only Bin Laden Had a Stained Blue Dress... (Ann Coulter)


The first month Clinton was in office, Islamic terrorists with
suspected links to al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein bombed the World Trade
Center.


When Bush had only been in office NINE months and left 9-11 happen, we
were told it wasn't the poor babies fault. His evil predecessor, one
Mr. Clinton, didn't leave any warnings, or defense plans, or fresh
coffee, or anything - and how do you expect the Shrub to come up with
his own? It's all his predecessors fault. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Shrub didn't even have time for his coffee to cool off.

OK, then, when Clinton was only in office ONE month and got attacked,
shouldn't we blame Papa Bush? Same logic.

With eight months longer to get security working, Bush should have
been right on top of things. Unless of course he wanted 'a
galvanizing event'? Naw.

It took Bush Jr. that long to name an FBI director, who, by the way, was
only in office a few days when the towers fell.
George
.


User: "Dan Clore"

Title: Re: Ann Coulter: If Only Bin Laden Had A Stained Blue Dress 25 Sep 2006 05:31:16 AM
Sound of Trumpet wrote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1700984/posts
If Only Bin Laden Had a Stained Blue Dress... (Ann Coulter)
HUMAN EVENT ^ | 09/13/2006 | By Ann Coulter

Media Matter for America did their usual fine job tearing
this to shreds:
http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200609160002
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1587154838/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/clorebeast/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
.
User: "nevermore"

Title: Re: Ann Coulter: If Only Bin Laden Had A Stained Blue Dress 25 Sep 2006 05:38:17 AM
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 03:31:16 -0700, Dan Clore
<clore@columbia-center.org> wrote:

Sound of Trumpet wrote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1700984/posts
If Only Bin Laden Had a Stained Blue Dress... (Ann Coulter)
HUMAN EVENT ^ | 09/13/2006 | By Ann Coulter


Media Matter for America did their usual fine job tearing
this to shreds:
http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200609160002

<LOL> "Media matters," as usual, flustered and blustered, and did
nothing to refute the story....
"When I was In high school, I loved getting drunk and
tearing around in the mountains of Central California."
--Zepp Dec 7 1999
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/7230848ec0c07282?hl=en&
.
User: "Kate "

Title: Re: Ann Coulter: If Only Bin Laden Had A Stained Blue Dress 25 Sep 2006 09:24:03 AM
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 06:38:17 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 03:31:16 -0700, Dan Clore
<clore@columbia-center.org> wrote:

Sound of Trumpet wrote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1700984/posts
If Only Bin Laden Had a Stained Blue Dress... (Ann Coulter)
HUMAN EVENT ^ | 09/13/2006 | By Ann Coulter


Media Matter for America did their usual fine job tearing
this to shreds:
http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200609160002



<LOL> "Media matters," as usual, flustered and blustered, and did
nothing to refute the story....

I see once again, you failed to read it. Never reads, does
nevermore.
.
User: "nevermore"

Title: Re: Ann Coulter: If Only Bin Laden Had A Stained Blue Dress 25 Sep 2006 06:52:55 PM
On 25 Sep 2006 09:24:03 -0500,
(Kate ) wrote:

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 06:38:17 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 03:31:16 -0700, Dan Clore
<clore@columbia-center.org> wrote:

Sound of Trumpet wrote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1700984/posts
If Only Bin Laden Had a Stained Blue Dress... (Ann Coulter)
HUMAN EVENT ^ | 09/13/2006 | By Ann Coulter


Media Matter for America did their usual fine job tearing
this to shreds:
http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200609160002



<LOL> "Media matters," as usual, flustered and blustered, and did
nothing to refute the story....


I see once again, you failed to read it. Never reads, does
nevermore.

I read it.... al fluster and bluster....
"When I was In high school, I loved getting drunk and
tearing around in the mountains of Central California."
--Zepp Dec 7 1999
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/7230848ec0c07282?hl=en&
.




User: "Douglas Berry"

Title: Re: Ann Coulter: If Only Bin Laden Had A Stained Blue Dress 24 Sep 2006 09:29:32 PM
What's so funny about peace, love and "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> posting the following on 24 Sep 2006
17:43:37 -0700 iin alt.atheism?


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1700984/posts

Let's count the lies, shall we?

If you wonder why it took 50 years to get the truth about Joe McCarthy,
consider the fanatical campaign of the Clinton acolytes to kill an ABC
movie that relies on the 9/11 commission report, which whitewashed only
90 percent of Clinton's cowardice and incompetence in the face of
terrorism, rather than 100 percent.

Lie one. The movie was widely decried by the people who were there
for inventing scenes that flatly did not happen.

Islamic jihadists attacked America year after year throughout the
Clinton administration. They did everything but blow up his proverbial
"bridge to the 21st century." Every year but one, Clinton found an
excuse not to fight back.

Lie. Clinton created out first ever national terrorism policy,
authorized the CIA to kill bin-Laden not once, but twice, and attacked
Afghanistan after the African embassy bombings. Oh, and we weren't
attacked "year after year". We were attacked four times in eight
years.

The first month Clinton was in office, Islamic terrorists with
suspected links to al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein bombed the World Trade
Center.

Suspected by whom? Not the people who actually followed the case! The
only link was financing by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. No link to Saddam
at all.


For the first time ever, a terrorist act against America was treated
not as a matter of national security, but exclusively as a simple
criminal offense. The individual bombers were tried in a criminal
court. (The one plotter who got away fled to Iraq, that peaceful haven
of kite-flying children until Bush invaded and turned it into a nation
of dangerous lunatics.)

On 26 February 1993, a car loaded with 1,200 pounds of explosives
blew up in a parking garage under the World Trade Center, killing six
people and injuring about a thousand others. The blast did not, as its
planners intended, bring down the towers — that was finally
accomplished by flying two hijacked airliners into the twin towers on
the morning of 11 September 2001.
Four followers of the Egyptian cleric Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman were
captured, convicted of the World Trade Center bombing in March 1994,
and sentenced to 240 years in prison each. The purported mastermind of
the plot, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, was captured in 1995, convicted of the
bombing in November 1997, and also sentenced to 240 years in prison.
One additional suspect fled the U.S. and is believed to be living in
Baghdad.

In 1995 and 1996, various branches of the Religion of Peace -
al-Qaida, Hezbollah and the Iranian "Party of God" - staged car bomb
attacks on American servicemen in Saudi Arabia, killing 24 members of
our military in all. Each time, the Clinton administration came up with
an excuse to do nothing.

On 13 November 1995, a bomb was set off in a van parked in front of an
American-run military training center in the Saudi Arabian capital of
Riyadh, killing five Americans and two Indians. Saudi Arabian
authorities arrested four Saudi nationals whom they claim confessed to
the bombings, but U.S. officials were denied permission to see or
question the suspects before they were convicted and beheaded in May
1996.
On 25 June 1996, a booby-trapped truck loaded with 5,000 pounds of
explosives was exploded outside the Khobar Towers apartment complex
which housed United States military personnel in Dhahran, Saudi
Arabia, killing nineteen Americans and wounding about three hundred
others. Once again, the U.S. investigation was hampered by the refusal
of Saudi officials to allow the FBI to question suspects.
On 21 June 2001, just before the American statute of limitations would
have expired, a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, indicted
thirteen Saudis and an unidentified Lebanese chemist for the Khobar
Towers bombing. The suspects remain in Saudi custody, beyond the reach
of the American justice system. (Saudi Arabia has no extradition
treaty with the U.S.)

Despite the Democrats' current claim that only the capture of Osama bin
Laden will magically end terrorism forever, Clinton turned down Sudan's
offer to hand us bin Laden in 1996. That year, Mohamed Atta proposed
the 9/11 attack to bin Laden.

Big-***** lie.

Clinton refused the handover of bin Laden because - he said in taped
remarks on Feb. 15, 2002 - "(bin Laden) had committed no crime
against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on
which to hold him." Luckily, after 9/11, we can get him on that
trespassing charge.

Lie, especially since bin-Laden never entered the US.

Although Clinton made the criminal justice system the entire U.S.
counterterrorism strategy, there was not even an indictment filed after
the bombing of either Khobar Towers (1996) or the USS Cole (2000).
Indictments were not filed until after Bush/Ashcroft came into office.

Lie. See above.

Only in 1998 did the Clinton-haters ("normal people") force Clinton
into a military response. Solely because of the Monica Lewinsky
scandal, Clinton finally lobbed a few bombs in the general direction of
Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

Lie.

In August 1998, three days after Clinton admitted to the nation that he
did in fact have "sex with that woman," he bombed Afghanistan and
Sudan, doing about as much damage as another Clinton fusillade did to a
blue Gap dress.

Lie. The attack destroyed several training camps. The GOP response?
To decry the attacks as an attempt to distract Americans from
Clinton's all-important sex life.

The day of Clinton's scheduled impeachment, Dec. 18, 1998, he bombed
Iraq. This accomplished two things: 1) It delayed his impeachment for
one day, and 2) it got a lot of Democrats on record about the
monumental danger of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass
destruction.

So don't tell me impeachment "distracted" Clinton from his aggressive
pursuit of terrorists. He never would have bombed anyone if it weren't
for the Clinton-haters.

In August 1998, President Clinton ordered missile strikes against
targets in Afghanistan in an effort to hit Osama bin Laden, who had
been linked to the embassy bombings in Africa (and was later connected
to the attack on the USS Cole). The missiles reportedly missed bin
Laden by a few hours, and Clinton was widely criticized by many who
claimed he had ordered the strikes primarily to draw attention away
from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. As John F. Harris wrote in The
Washington Post:
"In August 1998, when [Clinton] ordered missile strikes in an
effort to kill Osama bin Laden, there was widespread speculation —
from such people as Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) — that he was acting
precipitously to draw attention away from the Monica S. Lewinsky
scandal, then at full boil. Some said he was mistaken for
personalizing the terrorism struggle so much around bin Laden. And
when he ordered the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the
White House after domestic terrorism in Oklahoma City, some
Republicans accused him of hysteria.
" . . . the federal budget on anti-terror activities tripled during
Clinton's watch, to about $6.7 billion. After the effort to kill bin
Laden with missiles in August 1998 failed — he had apparently left a
training camp in Afghanistan a few hours earlier — recent news reports
have detailed numerous other instances, as late as December 2000, when
Clinton was on the verge of unleashing the military again. In each
case, the White House chose not to act because of uncertainty that
intelligence was good enough to find bin Laden, and concern that a
failed attack would only enhance his stature in the Arab world.
" . . . people maintain Clinton should have adapted Bush's policy
promising that regimes that harbor terrorism will be treated as
severely as terrorists themselves, and threatening to evict the
Taliban from power in Afghanistan unless leaders meet his demands to
produce bin Laden and associates. But Clinton aides said such a policy
— potentially involving a full-scale war in central Asia — was not
plausible before politics the world over became transformed by one of
history's most lethal acts of terrorism."
Clinton's former national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger . . .
said there [was] little prospect . . . that Pakistan would have helped
the United States wage war against bin Laden or the Taliban in 1998,
even after such outrages as the bombing of U.S. embassies overseas.

As soon as Clinton was no longer "distracted" by impeachment, he went
right back to doing nothing in response to terrorism. In October 2000,
al-Qaida bombed the USS Cole, killing 17 sailors and nearly sinking the
ship.

Lie. The Cole was never in danger of sinking.
On 12 October 2000, two suicide bombers detonated an explosives-laden
skiff next to the USS Cole while it was refueling in Aden, Yemen,
blasting a hole in the ship that killed 17 sailors and injured 37
others. No suspects have yet been arrested or indicted. The
investigation has been hampered by the refusal of Yemini officials to
allow FBI agents access to Yemeni nationals and other suspects in
custody in Yemen.
(The USS Cole bombing occurred one month before the 2000 presidential
election, so even under the best of circumstances it was unlikely that
the investigation could have been completed before the end of
President Clinton's term of office three months later.)

Clinton did nothing.

No, Clinton tried to do what he could. The GOP accused him of being
hysterical.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
.
User: "nevermore"

Title: Re: Ann Coulter: If Only Bin Laden Had A Stained Blue Dress 25 Sep 2006 04:48:20 AM
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 02:29:32 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

What's so funny about peace, love and "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> posting the following on 24 Sep 2006
17:43:37 -0700 iin alt.atheism?


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1700984/posts


Let's count the lies, shall we?

If you wonder why it took 50 years to get the truth about Joe McCarthy,
consider the fanatical campaign of the Clinton acolytes to kill an ABC
movie that relies on the 9/11 commission report, which whitewashed only
90 percent of Clinton's cowardice and incompetence in the face of
terrorism, rather than 100 percent.


Lie one. The movie was widely decried by the people who were there
for inventing scenes that flatly did not happen.

<ROTFLMAO> Now lets see, who am I going to believe? The people that
did the research to make the movie, or a moron like Berry

"When I was In high school, I loved getting drunk and
tearing around in the mountains of Central California."
--Zepp Dec 7 1999
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/7230848ec0c07282?hl=en&
.
User: "George"

Title: Re: Ann Coulter: If Only Bin Laden Had A Stained Blue Dress 25 Sep 2006 05:58:51 AM
"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in message
news:f58fh290596tt35e2f4v0hk6if0ha4tds9@4ax.com...

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 02:29:32 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

What's so funny about peace, love and "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> posting the following on 24 Sep 2006
17:43:37 -0700 iin alt.atheism?


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1700984/posts


Let's count the lies, shall we?

If you wonder why it took 50 years to get the truth about Joe McCarthy,
consider the fanatical campaign of the Clinton acolytes to kill an ABC
movie that relies on the 9/11 commission report, which whitewashed only
90 percent of Clinton's cowardice and incompetence in the face of
terrorism, rather than 100 percent.


Lie one. The movie was widely decried by the people who were there
for inventing scenes that flatly did not happen.


<ROTFLMAO> Now lets see, who am I going to believe? The people that
did the research to make the movie, or a moron like Berry

Yeah, it was so well researched, it came complete with a disclamer that as
much as admitted that the movie took license with truth for dramatic flare.
So much for their research.
George
.
User: "nevermore"

Title: Re: Ann Coulter: If Only Bin Laden Had A Stained Blue Dress 25 Sep 2006 06:11:00 AM
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 06:58:51 -0400, "George" <george@yourservice.com>
wrote:


"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in message
news:f58fh290596tt35e2f4v0hk6if0ha4tds9@4ax.com...

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 02:29:32 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

What's so funny about peace, love and "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> posting the following on 24 Sep 2006
17:43:37 -0700 iin alt.atheism?


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1700984/posts


Let's count the lies, shall we?

If you wonder why it took 50 years to get the truth about Joe McCarthy,
consider the fanatical campaign of the Clinton acolytes to kill an ABC
movie that relies on the 9/11 commission report, which whitewashed only
90 percent of Clinton's cowardice and incompetence in the face of
terrorism, rather than 100 percent.


Lie one. The movie was widely decried by the people who were there
for inventing scenes that flatly did not happen.


<ROTFLMAO> Now lets see, who am I going to believe? The people that
did the research to make the movie, or a moron like Berry


Yeah, it was so well researched, it came complete with a disclamer that as
much as admitted that the movie took license with truth for dramatic flare.
So much for their research.

George

<LOL> You're pretty poor at spinning too... The actual dialogs may
have not been accurate, which was all the disclaimer said, but what
actually happened was pretty accurate.
"When I was In high school, I loved getting drunk and
tearing around in the mountains of Central California."
--Zepp Dec 7 1999
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/7230848ec0c07282?hl=en&
.
User: "George"

Title: Re: Ann Coulter: If Only Bin Laden Had A Stained Blue Dress 25 Sep 2006 06:21:20 AM
"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in message
news:u6efh2p6f4kh8orpodjqofk8ke28b1hpul@4ax.com...

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 06:58:51 -0400, "George" <george@yourservice.com>
wrote:


"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in message
news:f58fh290596tt35e2f4v0hk6if0ha4tds9@4ax.com...

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 02:29:32 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

What's so funny about peace, love and "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> posting the following on 24 Sep 2006
17:43:37 -0700 iin alt.atheism?


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1700984/posts


Let's count the lies, shall we?

If you wonder why it took 50 years to get the truth about Joe
McCarthy,
consider the fanatical campaign of the Clinton acolytes to kill an ABC
movie that relies on the 9/11 commission report, which whitewashed
only
90 percent of Clinton's cowardice and incompetence in the face of
terrorism, rather than 100 percent.


Lie one. The movie was widely decried by the people who were there
for inventing scenes that flatly did not happen.


<ROTFLMAO> Now lets see, who am I going to believe? The people that
did the research to make the movie, or a moron like Berry


Yeah, it was so well researched, it came complete with a disclamer that
as
much as admitted that the movie took license with truth for dramatic
flare.
So much for their research.

George



<LOL> You're pretty poor at spinning too... The actual dialogs may
have not been accurate, which was all the disclaimer said, but what
actually happened was pretty accurate.

ABC admitted before and after it was aired that there were scenes in the
movie that didn't actually occur. Perhaps you should actually watch the
movie before you post your drivel.
George
.
User: "nevermore"

Title: Re: Ann Coulter: If Only Bin Laden Had A Stained Blue Dress 25 Sep 2006 06:52:53 PM
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 07:21:20 -0400, "George" <george@yourservice.com>
wrote:


"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in message
news:u6efh2p6f4kh8orpodjqofk8ke28b1hpul@4ax.com...

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 06:58:51 -0400, "George" <george@yourservice.com>
wrote:


"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in message
news:f58fh290596tt35e2f4v0hk6if0ha4tds9@4ax.com...

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 02:29:32 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

What's so funny about peace, love and "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> posting the following on 24 Sep 2006
17:43:37 -0700 iin alt.atheism?


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1700984/posts


Let's count the lies, shall we?

If you wonder why it took 50 years to get the truth about Joe
McCarthy,
consider the fanatical campaign of the Clinton acolytes to kill an ABC
movie that relies on the 9/11 commission report, which whitewashed
only
90 percent of Clinton's cowardice and incompetence in the face of
terrorism, rather than 100 percent.


Lie one. The movie was widely decried by the people who were there
for inventing scenes that flatly did not happen.


<ROTFLMAO> Now lets see, who am I going to believe? The people that
did the research to make the movie, or a moron like Berry


Yeah, it was so well researched, it came complete with a disclamer that
as
much as admitted that the movie took license with truth for dramatic
flare.
So much for their research.

George



<LOL> You're pretty poor at spinning too... The actual dialogs may
have not been accurate, which was all the disclaimer said, but what
actually happened was pretty accurate.


ABC admitted before and after it was aired that there were scenes in the
movie that didn't actually occur. Perhaps you should actually watch the
movie before you post your drivel.

George

yep they had to fabricate scenes and dialogs to match what actually
happened.
"When I was In high school, I loved getting drunk and
tearing around in the mountains of Central California."
--Zepp Dec 7 1999
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/7230848ec0c07282?hl=en&
.
User: "George"

Title: Re: Ann Coulter: If Only Bin Laden Had A Stained Blue Dress 25 Sep 2006 09:23:33 PM
"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in message
news:uoqgh21ih12apmhqfftqosv7dn6sumc0bb@4ax.com...

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 07:21:20 -0400, "George" <george@yourservice.com>
wrote:


"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in message
news:u6efh2p6f4kh8orpodjqofk8ke28b1hpul@4ax.com...

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 06:58:51 -0400, "George" <george@yourservice.com>
wrote:


"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in message
news:f58fh290596tt35e2f4v0hk6if0ha4tds9@4ax.com...

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 02:29:32 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

What's so funny about peace, love and "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> posting the following on 24 Sep 2006
17:43:37 -0700 iin alt.atheism?


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1700984/posts


Let's count the lies, shall we?

If you wonder why it took 50 years to get the truth about Joe
McCarthy,
consider the fanatical campaign of the Clinton acolytes to kill an
ABC
movie that relies on the 9/11 commission report, which whitewashed
only
90 percent of Clinton's cowardice and incompetence in the face of
terrorism, rather than 100 percent.


Lie one. The movie was widely decried by the people who were there
for inventing scenes that flatly did not happen.


<ROTFLMAO> Now lets see, who am I going to believe? The people
that
did the research to make the movie, or a moron like Berry


Yeah, it was so well researched, it came complete with a disclamer that
as
much as admitted that the movie took license with truth for dramatic
flare.
So much for their research.

George



<LOL> You're pretty poor at spinning too... The actual dialogs may
have not been accurate, which was all the disclaimer said, but what
actually happened was pretty accurate.


ABC admitted before and after it was aired that there were scenes in the
movie that didn't actually occur. Perhaps you should actually watch the
movie before you post your drivel.

George



yep they had to fabricate scenes and dialogs to match what actually
happened.

Umm, do you ever read the crap you're saying before you post it?
George
.
User: "nevermore"

Title: Re: Ann Coulter: If Only Bin Laden Had A Stained Blue Dress 26 Sep 2006 04:52:57 AM
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 22:23:33 -0400, "George" <george@yourservice.com>
wrote:


"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in message
news:uoqgh21ih12apmhqfftqosv7dn6sumc0bb@4ax.com...

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 07:21:20 -0400, "George" <george@yourservice.com>
wrote:


"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in message
news:u6efh2p6f4kh8orpodjqofk8ke28b1hpul@4ax.com...

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 06:58:51 -0400, "George" <george@yourservice.com>
wrote:


"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in message
news:f58fh290596tt35e2f4v0hk6if0ha4tds9@4ax.com...

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 02:29:32 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

What's so funny about peace, love and "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> posting the following on 24 Sep 2006
17:43:37 -0700 iin alt.atheism?


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1700984/posts


Let's count the lies, shall we?

If you wonder why it took 50 years to get the truth about Joe
McCarthy,
consider the fanatical campaign of the Clinton acolytes to kill an
ABC
movie that relies on the 9/11 commission report, which whitewashed
only
90 percent of Clinton's cowardice and incompetence in the face of
terrorism, rather than 100 percent.


Lie one. The movie was widely decried by the people who were there
for inventing scenes that flatly did not happen.


<ROTFLMAO> Now lets see, who am I going to believe? The people
that
did the research to make the movie, or a moron like Berry


Yeah, it was so well researched, it came complete with a disclamer that
as
much as admitted that the movie took license with truth for dramatic
flare.
So much for their research.

George



<LOL> You're pretty poor at spinning too... The actual dialogs may
have not been accurate, which was all the disclaimer said, but what
actually happened was pretty accurate.


ABC admitted before and after it was aired that there were scenes in the
movie that didn't actually occur. Perhaps you should actually watch the
movie before you post your drivel.

George



yep they had to fabricate scenes and dialogs to match what actually
happened.


Umm, do you ever read the crap you're saying before you post it?

George

<LOL> Sure do..
"When I was In high school, I loved getting drunk and
tearing around in the mountains of Central California."
--Zepp Dec 7 1999
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/7230848ec0c07282?hl=en&
.






User: "Kate "

Title: Re: Ann Coulter: If Only Bin Laden Had A Stained Blue Dress 25 Sep 2006 05:56:01 AM
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 05:48:20 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 02:29:32 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

What's so funny about peace, love and "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> posting the following on 24 Sep 2006
17:43:37 -0700 iin alt.atheism?


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1700984/posts


Let's count the lies, shall we?

If you wonder why it took 50 years to get the truth about Joe McCarthy,
consider the fanatical campaign of the Clinton acolytes to kill an ABC
movie that relies on the 9/11 commission report, which whitewashed only
90 percent of Clinton's cowardice and incompetence in the face of
terrorism, rather than 100 percent.


Lie one. The movie was widely decried by the people who were there
for inventing scenes that flatly did not happen.


<ROTFLMAO> Now lets see, who am I going to believe? The people that
did the research to make the movie, or a moron like Berry

You mean the people who admitted that they made a bunch of stuff up?
Or an intellegent respected man like Berry who doesn't have the agenda
of propaganda?
I dunno - if you are a dumbass neo con, who loves lies, probably you
will pretend to believe the propaganda.
.
User: "north"

Title: Re: Ann Coulter: If Only Bin Laden Had A Stained Blue Dress 26 Sep 2006 05:31:14 PM
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4521b52e.251268921@news-west.newscene.com...

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 05:48:20 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 02:29:32 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

What's so funny about peace, love and "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> posting the following on 24 Sep 2006
17:43:37 -0700 iin alt.atheism?


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1700984/posts


Let's count the lies, shall we?

If you wonder why it took 50 years to get the truth about Joe McCarthy,
consider the fanatical campaign of the Clinton acolytes to kill an ABC
movie that relies on the 9/11 commission report, which whitewashed only
90 percent of Clinton's cowardice and incompetence in the face of
terrorism, rather than 100 percent.


Lie one. The movie was widely decried by the people who were there
for inventing scenes that flatly did not happen.


<ROTFLMAO> Now lets see, who am I going to believe? The people that
did the research to make the movie, or a moron like Berry


You mean the people who admitted that they made a bunch of stuff up?
Or an intellegent respected man like Berry who doesn't have the agenda
of propaganda?

I dunno - if you are a dumbass neo con, who loves lies, probably you
will pretend to believe the propaganda.

And lets not forget who the makers of the film were in bed with (err good
buddies with).
n.
.
User: "nevermore"

Title: Re: Ann Coulter: If Only Bin Laden Had A Stained Blue Dress 26 Sep 2006 07:49:17 PM
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 18:31:14 -0400, "north" <north@the_shack.com>
wrote:


"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4521b52e.251268921@news-west.newscene.com...

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 05:48:20 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 02:29:32 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

What's so funny about peace, love and "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> posting the following on 24 Sep 2006
17:43:37 -0700 iin alt.atheism?


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1700984/posts


Let's count the lies, shall we?

If you wonder why it took 50 years to get the truth about Joe McCarthy,
consider the fanatical campaign of the Clinton acolytes to kill an ABC
movie that relies on the 9/11 commission report, which whitewashed only
90 percent of Clinton's cowardice and incompetence in the face of
terrorism, rather than 100 percent.


Lie one. The movie was widely decried by the people who were there
for inventing scenes that flatly did not happen.


<ROTFLMAO> Now lets see, who am I going to believe? The people that
did the research to make the movie, or a moron like Berry


You mean the people who admitted that they made a bunch of stuff up?
Or an intellegent respected man like Berry who doesn't have the agenda
of propaganda?

I dunno - if you are a dumbass neo con, who loves lies, probably you
will pretend to believe the propaganda.


And lets not forget who the makers of the film were in bed with (err good
buddies with).

n.

ROTFLMAO.... Now that's funny....
"When I was In high school, I loved getting drunk and
tearing around in the mountains of Central California."
--Zepp Dec 7 1999
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/7230848ec0c07282?hl=en&
.

User: "Gunner"

Title: Re: Ann Coulter: If Only Bin Laden Had A Stained Blue Dress 26 Sep 2006 08:42:46 PM
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 18:31:14 -0400, "north" <north@the_shack.com> wrote:


"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4521b52e.251268921@news-west.newscene.com...

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 05:48:20 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 02:29:32 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

What's so funny about peace, love and "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> posting the following on 24 Sep 2006
17:43:37 -0700 iin alt.atheism?


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1700984/posts


Let's count the lies, shall we?

If you wonder why it took 50 years to get the truth about Joe McCarthy,
consider the fanatical campaign of the Clinton acolytes to kill an ABC
movie that relies on the 9/11 commission report, which whitewashed only
90 percent of Clinton's cowardice and incompetence in the face of
terrorism, rather than 100 percent.


Lie one. The movie was widely decried by the people who were there
for inventing scenes that flatly did not happen.


<ROTFLMAO> Now lets see, who am I going to believe? The people that
did the research to make the movie, or a moron like Berry


You mean the people who admitted that they made a bunch of stuff up?
Or an intellegent respected man like Berry who doesn't have the agenda
of propaganda?

I dunno - if you are a dumbass neo con, who loves lies, probably you
will pretend to believe the propaganda.


And lets not forget who the makers of the film were in bed with (err good
buddies with).

n.

Michael Moore?
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the ***** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
.
User: "north"

Title: Re: Ann Coulter: If Only Bin Laden Had A Stained Blue Dress 27 Sep 2006 05:15:24 AM
"Gunner" <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:foljh2luhopg10qqn3tkskejkb6ki0i8p7@4ax.com...

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 18:31:14 -0400, "north" <north@the_shack.com> wrote:


"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4521b52e.251268921@news-west.newscene.com...

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 05:48:20 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 02:29:32 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

What's so funny about peace, love and "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> posting the following on 24 Sep 2006
17:43:37 -0700 iin alt.atheism?


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1700984/posts


Let's count the lies, shall we?

If you wonder why it took 50 years to get the truth about Joe

McCarthy,

consider the fanatical campaign of the Clinton acolytes to kill an

ABC

movie that relies on the 9/11 commission report, which whitewashed

only

90 percent of Clinton's cowardice and incompetence in the face of
terrorism, rather than 100 percent.


Lie one. The movie was widely decried by the people who were there
for inventing scenes that flatly did not happen.


<ROTFLMAO> Now lets see, who am I going to believe? The people that
did the research to make the movie, or a moron like Berry


You mean the people who admitted that they made a bunch of stuff up?
Or an intellegent respected man like Berry who doesn't have the agenda
of propaganda?

I dunno - if you are a dumbass neo con, who loves lies, probably you
will pretend to believe the propaganda.


And lets not forget who the makers of the film were in bed with (err good
buddies with).

n.

Michael Moore?

Actually yes. But I was thinking along the lines of HeadRush Limbo.
It's kinda funny watching the Dems back peddle (and the pugs as well) I'd
expect an Oct. surprise every-single-day in Oct.
It's also funny watching the Dems attitude, they have the thinking that they
belong in power, it's just that the people don't know it.
However, what is NOT funny is the fact that they just might pull it off, and
if they do, I'd expect major gun control laws, gun bans, etc... all in the
name of fighting terrorism. You know, they need to dis-arm the American
people in order to make it easier for the terrorists to spread Islam to the
people.
Remember how the Dems pitched a ***** when the AWB sunsetted ? They were
saying the the AWB was needed for the WoT...... But won't they WON'T tell
you is the FACT that gun crime, especially crime committed with evil looking
military style weapons has fallen bigtime.
n.
.
User: "Kate "

Title: Re: Ann Coulter: If Only Bin Laden Had A Stained Blue Dress 27 Sep 2006 07:13:02 AM
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 06:15:24 -0400, "north" <north@the_shack.com>
wrote:


"Gunner" <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:foljh2luhopg10qqn3tkskejkb6ki0i8p7@4ax.com...

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 18:31:14 -0400, "north" <north@the_shack.com> wrote:


"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4521b52e.251268921@news-west.newscene.com...

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 05:48:20 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 02:29:32 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

What's so funny about peace, love and "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> posting the following on 24 Sep 2006
17:43:37 -0700 iin alt.atheism?


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1700984/posts


Let's count the lies, shall we?

If you wonder why it took 50 years to get the truth about Joe

McCarthy,

consider the fanatical campaign of the Clinton acolytes to kill an

ABC

movie that relies on the 9/11 commission report, which whitewashed

only

90 percent of Clinton's cowardice and incompetence in the face of
terrorism, rather than 100 percent.


Lie one. The movie was widely decried by the people who were there
for inventing scenes that flatly did not happen.


<ROTFLMAO> Now lets see, who am I going to believe? The people that
did the research to make the movie, or a moron like Berry


You mean the people who admitted that they made a bunch of stuff up?
Or an intellegent respected man like Berry who doesn't have the agenda
of propaganda?

I dunno - if you are a dumbass neo con, who loves lies, probably you
will pretend to believe the propaganda.


And lets not forget who the makers of the film were in bed with (err good
buddies with).

n.

Michael Moore?


Actually yes. But I was thinking along the lines of HeadRush Limbo.

It's kinda funny watching the Dems back peddle (and the pugs as well) I'd
expect an Oct. surprise every-single-day in Oct.

It's also funny watching the Dems attitude, they have the thinking that they
belong in power, it's just that the people don't know it.

However, what is NOT funny is the fact that they just might pull it off, and
if they do, I'd expect major gun control laws, gun bans, etc... all in the
name of fighting terrorism. You know, they need to dis-arm the American
people in order to make it easier for the terrorists to spread Islam to the
people.

LOL, now there's the classic non thinker's strawman on liberals.
Shall we have a few hysterics about taxes now?

Remember how the Dems pitched a ***** when the AWB sunsetted ? They were
saying the the AWB was needed for the WoT...... But won't they WON'T tell
you is the FACT that gun crime, especially crime committed with evil looking
military style weapons has fallen bigtime.

n.

.
User: "Gunner"

Title: Re: Ann Coulter: If Only Bin Laden Had A Stained Blue Dress 27 Sep 2006 10:00:18 AM
On 27 Sep 2006 07:13:02 -0500,
(Kate ) wrote:


However, what is NOT funny is the fact that they just might pull it off, and
if they do, I'd expect major gun control laws, gun bans, etc... all in the
name of fighting terrorism. You know, they need to dis-arm the American
people in order to make it easier for the terrorists to spread Islam to the
people.


LOL, now there's the classic non thinker's strawman on liberals.
Shall we have a few hysterics about taxes now?

Remember how the Dems pitched a ***** when the AWB sunsetted ? They were
saying the the AWB was needed for the WoT...... But won't they WON'T tell
you is the FACT that gun crime, especially crime committed with evil looking
military style weapons has fallen bigtime.

n.

Ah..Kate..are you claiming that such is not valid? Need me to provide
the cites for each and every incremental gun control law that the Left
forced down the Peoples throat after some isolated incidence?
Sure you reeeeally want to go there?
Let me say one word..Stockton.
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the ***** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
.
User: "mr_antone mr_antone@"

Title: Re: Ann Coulter: If Only Bin Laden Had A Stained Blue Dress 27 Sep 2006 10:33:42 AM
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 15:00:18 GMT, Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net>
wrote:

On 27 Sep 2006 07:13:02 -0500,

(Kate ) wrote:


However, what is NOT funny is the fact that they just might pull it off, and
if they do, I'd expect major gun control laws, gun bans, etc... all in the
name of fighting terrorism. You know, they need to dis-arm the American
people in order to make it easier for the terrorists to spread Islam to the
people.


LOL, now there's the classic non thinker's strawman on liberals.
Shall we have a few hysterics about taxes now?

Remember how the Dems pitched a ***** when the AWB sunsetted ? They were
saying the the AWB was needed for the WoT...... But won't they WON'T tell
you is the FACT that gun crime, especially crime committed with evil looking
military style weapons has fallen bigtime.

n.



Ah..Kate..are you claiming that such is not valid? Need me to provide
the cites for each and every incremental gun control law that the Left
forced down the Peoples throat after some isolated incidence?

Major != incremental.
But yeah, go ahead and list them. Every one of them.
While you're at it list all the gun control laws Bush, Inc and the GOP
Congress have removed from the books.
mr_antone
.










  Page 1 of 6

1

 

2