French Defend Their Approach to Terror Threats

Jeremy Henderson muttered....



Well if you're waiting for we to defend Clinton I recommend you order
up some sandwiches as you're in for a long wait ;-) At least when he
was "not having sex" with Monica he wasn't bombing people.


Oh, but you're forgetting the Sudanese aspirin plant, the cruise missiles
blindly gurled at OBL's camps in the Afghan wilds, downtown belgrade,
Kosovo, etc.

Clinton was quite willing to "bomb" folks, simply resistant to the harsh
cold realities of committing ground troops and absorbing casualties (Hell,
after a couple of helos collided in the Balkans, his solution was to stop
flying...). Casualties and pictures of US dead and wounded meant lost
votes, and even the idea of another day like Mogadishu was enough to have
Mr. Clinton, remowned for sticking his dick and cigar in some furrin and
nasty places, panic that he might be blamed for dragging the US's dick in
the dirt and our goats in the wire.

It's one thing to be sexually misadventuous, but if you're so horny as to
get in a lather over Paula Jones broad (with a schnozz bigger'n a
hammerhead mule's) in Arkansas or to waggle your weenie at Miss Puppy Fat
of 2000, Monica the Chubby, you're hardly up to "European politician".

TMO

Jeremy Henderson wrote:

Well if you're waiting for we to defend Clinton I recommend you order up
some sandwiches as you're in for a long wait ;-)

'...waiting for we...'??? Very interesting.

In a world sorely stricken with apostropherrhoea---it's (for 'its'),
who'se, their's, ca'nt, etc., etc., one sees it every day---it's nice to
find a simple structural overcorrection for a change.

'waiting for _____'
'we defend Clinton'

When changing this to an infinitival construction (' to defend'), the
case of the pronoun is determined by the preposition ('for') and must
therefore be the object form ('us').

cheers,

Henry

On 1/1/04 6:03 pm, in article ,
"Olivers" wrote:

Jeremy Henderson muttered....



Well if you're waiting for we to defend Clinton I recommend you order
up some sandwiches as you're in for a long wait ;-) At least when he
was "not having sex" with Monica he wasn't bombing people.


Oh, but you're forgetting the Sudanese aspirin plant, the cruise missiles
blindly gurled at OBL's camps in the Afghan wilds, downtown belgrade,
Kosovo, etc.

Umm ... I think that's exactly what I was saying ...

J;

On 1/1/04 6:55 pm, in article ,
"Henry" wrote:

Jeremy Henderson wrote:

Well if you're waiting for we to defend Clinton I recommend you order up
some sandwiches as you're in for a long wait ;-)

'...waiting for we...'??? Very interesting.

In a world sorely stricken with apostropherrhoea---it's (for 'its'),
who'se, their's, ca'nt, etc., etc., one sees it every day---it's nice to
find a simple structural overcorrection for a change.

'waiting for _____'
'we defend Clinton'

When changing this to an infinitival construction (' to defend'), the
case of the pronoun is determined by the preposition ('for') and must
therefore be the object form ('us').

cheers,

Henry

Thanks for the grammar lesson Henry, but it was just a typo - I hit w by
mistake for m (maybe as a result of using an AZERTY keyboard half the time)

J;

"Nancy Kay" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:

while clinton was much more like a european politician, and therefore
more
acceptable.

Do you mean to imply that since he is more like a european politician
that all of them have "numerous affairs"?

--
Nancy Kay

I thought it was 'de rigeur'.

--
John Owens


Fax 44 1509 89 08 22
www.GoodViews.co.uk