Here’s something I learned from An Old Man:
Right-click the document and select proerties. You’ll see the creation date (2007) and the “revised” date, which was just before it was “leaked” accidentally, just in time for Tea Parties.
Someone saw this report, put in 2009 references, and leaked it big time.
IMO neither the revision nor the “leak” were accidental, nor was the timing. I think it was intended to stir people up, and it did.
So the linked article says the report was “prepared over a year ago, before 0 was even nominated”, yes, that’s true, but it was edited and modified less than a week ago.
Guess we will hear the Media explain that one away.
Good catch DBROW.
Maybe you should point that out to the writer of this article.
Yes, they probably started with a document that no longer bears any resemblance to the one are looking at today.
Clever trick.
It is full of generalities with no sources, an extremely flawed document that in no way can be called a study or research.
Its as if 3 lefties got together and invented their own little universe.
Ok 5 very little lefties.