Is Scott McClellan's scathing ';tell all'; a fitting footnote to the Bush administrations lust for war ?

How many in the administration have come out to say what an idiot he is. at least 4 and the former head of the FBI.





scaryIs Scott McClellan's scathing ';tell all'; a fitting footnote to the Bush administrations lust for war ?
Not that I am a fan of the Bush Administration, but let me offer you a little ';buyer beware'; on this.





Scott McClellan's 15 minutes of fame are up. He will basically fade into the world of nobodys very soon. His chance to cash in on it is to take a 6 or 7 figure advancement on a book deal, in the hopes that Bush haters will lap it up as fact.





I'm not saying that McClellan will go as far as to out and out lie through the whole thing, but I think it's quite plausible that you may get a distortion of the truth in this instance. He has people basically saying, ';We'll give you a lot of money if you just give us some dirt on Bush.'; Well, if you give someone a lot of money, dirt is what you'll get, whether its 100% accurate or not.Is Scott McClellan's scathing ';tell all'; a fitting footnote to the Bush administrations lust for war ?
McClellan is a moron who (badly) lied at the podium REPEATEDLY while he was being a good soldier and lapdog for Bush, then when he gets a book deal decides that he can 'tell it as it is'...the fact that he sat idly by during scandal after scandal and towed the Bush line and spoke the same tired old talking points over and over and over and then speaks his mind MUCH LATER after the fact makes him as unAmerican as can be.





Just check out any of this dude's press briefings on youtube to see how moronic he is. He was horrible at that job, but then again so is Dana Perino, so was Ari Fleisher and Tony 'max headroom' Snow.





So McClellan tells all and exposes Bush as a fraud, a phony, close-minded and inept? That's news? Everyone on the face of the planet knows that stuff.
Footnote? No it is just one of the early tomes in what will likely be a piling on for years to come.


Public sentiment is against Bush. So Books that bash Bush will sell. Anyone who has some insight that is, well, 'bashing' will be publishing in the next few years to cash in.





Although I think current popular opinion is correct, and the brief excerpt of McClellan's book is compelling, we won't really have a the clearest picture of the true impact of the Bush White house until well after the 'bashing' period of the next few years.





But back when Scotty was press secretary and was tortuously defending the indefensible I just had to write a piece on it.


http://lolalesabre.blogspot.com/2006/02/鈥?/a>
If Bush has a ';lust for war'; then count me and hundreds of thousands of others in as being lusty. You can thank Bush that your head is still on top of your shoulders and neck.
It is more about getting reelected than a lust for war. A sure fire way to get elected again is to keep the simple minded scared. They succeeded and are still succeeding at that. Examples above.
I haven't read it, and I don't plan to.


Have you?

Is there is a way for me to edit a large amount of footnotes at one time on Microsoft Word 2003?

I am a member of a digital library project, and we are transcribing a large document with over 300 footnotes attached. We have needed to changes these footnotes into regular text so that the document can be read by our computer program. (However, the footnote number itself stays, for instance: [1] (footnote text here...) However, we would like to renumber each footnote at once. Is this still possible, when all the footnotes have been changed to regular text? Any help would be much appreciated.Is there is a way for me to edit a large amount of footnotes at one time on Microsoft Word 2003?
Assuming that when you say ';all the footnotes have been changed to regular text'; you mean they are no longer footnotes, then there's nothing you can do but to go one by one inserting each footnote number then copying the text that you want is footnotes into the appropriate area at the bottom of each page. If they were still footnotes, and as long as the footnotes were inserted using Word's ';Insert, Reference, Footnote'; method, once you change the 1st number, the rest would change automatically.Is there is a way for me to edit a large amount of footnotes at one time on Microsoft Word 2003?
Yes it seems to be possible. I made a document with Footnotes and changed them to Normal text and was able to re-number them. Try it yourself on a mock document to be sure. To re-number them click on Insert - Footnotes and then on the Options button to choose the format you want. If any of the Footnote references (in the text) are deleted, the remaining footnotes will automatically re-number themselves.

How do you do endnotes or footnotes properly?

I am doing a research paper on Child Labor, so I have lots of facts and sources I have to list. Here are my questions-





1.What do I do when I state another fact from a source already listed?(i know about ibid, but do i just write ibid instead of another number? or do i have to list something to go along with ibid at the bottom where the sources are listed?)





2.If I use ibid for multiple sources, do I specify which of the repeated sources the fact is from? (example: I have a lot of facts from UNICEF, and a lot of facts from HRW; when I am using ibid for a UNICEF fact, do I write something extra to show that that's not a HRW fact?)How do you do endnotes or footnotes properly?
1. ';Ibid.'; is like ';ditto.'; You use it as shorthand for what you have previously cited. If your new facts come from new pages in that same source, you have to list the new pages after the ibid. If you don't, you are saying that your new facts come from the same pages as before. ';Ibid.'; stands alone only if you don't have anything different in your reference.





2 With multiple sources, as with single sources, the ibid only reflects what immediately came before it. If you change sources, you have to list the earlier one again before you can ibid it. If you go from UNICEF to HRW, and you have cited HRW before, you still have to list the HRW source all over again before you can ibid it again.





Edit:





You do need to number all footnotes. For example:





1. Book A, p. 41.


2. ibid., p. 72.


3. Book B, pp. 394-5


4. Book A, p. 111


5. ibid.





That last ibid refers to both book A *and* page 111.

skin conditions

I am trying to do a paper and need to use footnotes...what info do i actually put in footnotes and what order?

I am doing a research paper and i am using website only for information, i need to use footnotes but i am not real sure what information goes into a foot note and in what order. Does anyone know?I am trying to do a paper and need to use footnotes...what info do i actually put in footnotes and what order?
Author's full name followed by a comma, Book title in full, italicized or underlined, Publication information (enclosed in parentheses and followed by a comma): place of publication followed by a colon; name of publisher. Page numbers cited by a period. When you used a book for information you have to footnote either the whole book or the part of the book that you used.I am trying to do a paper and need to use footnotes...what info do i actually put in footnotes and what order?
Look up and use the MLA Format. It is very useful. There are so many ways to incite information. you cant go wrong with this format

Do footnotes go within the quotation marks?

I have to do citations with footnotes an I was wondering if when I do the footnote should it go within the parentheses or out of them?Do footnotes go within the quotation marks?
outside

When the Book of Love is published......Will you deserve a chapter, a footnote, or will ya be in the appendix?

What have you done to deserve where you end up?When the Book of Love is published......Will you deserve a chapter, a footnote, or will ya be in the appendix?
the sequel will be about me. lolWhen the Book of Love is published......Will you deserve a chapter, a footnote, or will ya be in the appendix?
I need a full unit in that book! I have a lot to say on the subject.
i'll be the centrefold - lol
i wont even be in it cause i dont kiss and tell
I'd be the author!!!!

Can Shyne rebound after his incarceration or will he be another sad footnote in the history of Bad Boys?

Last I heard of Shyne.. hes not going back to Bad Boy... but there is alot of anticipation to see what he does.Can Shyne rebound after his incarceration or will he be another sad footnote in the history of Bad Boys?
He will be another person Puff Daddy shitted on and used for financial gain.





I don't think Shyne has a second shot at a musical career. Aside from ';Bad Boyz'; his debut album was lackluster, I do however think people are interested in his life and I see him getting a few book deals and interviews and stuff. Dude did a dime in prison... I'd buy his book bro.





Do you think he has a shot Dubya?


Yikes.Can Shyne rebound after his incarceration or will he be another sad footnote in the history of Bad Boys?
You know what i really hope he can. The album he put out before getting locked up was okay. He showed potential on it and I wanted to hear more from him but never got the chance. I think he has a 50/50 chance of doing big things or just flopping! I guess we will see soon!
i still bump Shyne...





i think Shyne can bounce back..





i love that Shyne album..i bought it..





just gotta get right people..





if Gunit and Lil Flip can make music..





i dont see why Shyne cant..





i wouldnt mind hearing Shyne and the Game on a track.
I doubt it.





Shyne does however deserve credit for one of the corniest but at the same time great lines.





';I like girls who like girls who like furs';
i dunno but i bet diddy/daddy (woteva hes callin himself) gunna b beefin his security tho. he commin 2 get u, paybacks a ***** lol
No way. He's forgotten.
I don't think so cuz his music just wouldn't fit with what Diddy produces now
no
no he can't.