Difference between revisions of "Talk:Sandy Berger"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(this is unholy.) |
(attention) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:::He's not smiling. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:02, 6 August 2009 (EDT) | :::He's not smiling. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:02, 6 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
::::Evidence suggests he was destroying Clinton admin info about its failure to deal with bin Laden & al-Queada. As an historian, this is unholy. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:04, 6 August 2009 (EDT) | ::::Evidence suggests he was destroying Clinton admin info about its failure to deal with bin Laden & al-Queada. As an historian, this is unholy. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:04, 6 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
| + | :::::that's just speculation. He only had xerox copies of the documents (the originals were electronic and on a hard drive). The issue for conservatives is how Clinton dealt with Al-Queada and that is obscured by excessive attention to the court case. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:25, 6 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 01:25, August 7, 2009
What do you think, is this better? Rob Smith 20:59, 6 August 2009 (EDT)
- it's pretty bad. :) RJJensen 21:00, 6 August 2009 (EDT)
- He's not smiling. Rob Smith 21:02, 6 August 2009 (EDT)
- Evidence suggests he was destroying Clinton admin info about its failure to deal with bin Laden & al-Queada. As an historian, this is unholy. Rob Smith 21:04, 6 August 2009 (EDT)
- that's just speculation. He only had xerox copies of the documents (the originals were electronic and on a hard drive). The issue for conservatives is how Clinton dealt with Al-Queada and that is obscured by excessive attention to the court case. RJJensen 21:25, 6 August 2009 (EDT)
- Evidence suggests he was destroying Clinton admin info about its failure to deal with bin Laden & al-Queada. As an historian, this is unholy. Rob Smith 21:04, 6 August 2009 (EDT)
- He's not smiling. Rob Smith 21:02, 6 August 2009 (EDT)
- it's pretty bad. :) RJJensen 21:00, 6 August 2009 (EDT)