Of Topic: On the Cindy Sheehan matter...

[LoneWolf23k]

News update on the Cindy Sheehan matter: she's apparantly decided to leave her campsite to go tend to her ailing mother..


...well, it's nice to know she still has some sense of priority..

[Narnian]

[...unWARP!!!]
Good evening.

One of the guys at work is named Jesus, but he pronounces it Hay-soos.
Anyway - that just shows that some people do name their kids after a Deity!

That is actually typical of Latin Americans. "Hessoos" is the Spanish pronunciation of "Jesus". There was once an Argentinian government official whose name was "Espiritu Santo" = Holy Spirit.

And there is a person named "Jesus Tax", only you pronounced his name "Hesoos Tash"
<snip>

I have noticed when it comes to pronouncing hispanic names we gringos screw up a lot of them but manage to get "Hessoos"

[UncleMonty]

[...unWARP!!!]
Good evening.

One of the guys at work is named Jesus, but he pronounces it Hay-soos.
Anyway - that just shows that some people do name their kids after a Deity!

That is actually typical of Latin Americans. "Hessoos" is the Spanish pronunciation of "Jesus". There was once an Argentinian government official whose name was "Espiritu Santo" = Holy Spirit.

And there is a person named "Jesus Tax", only you pronounced his name "Hesoos Tash"
<snip>

I have noticed when it comes to pronouncing hispanic names we gringos screw up a lot of them but manage to get "Hessoos"

I've wondered about that occasionally.
"Jesus" is a proper name, and as such should be pronounced as it would have been in its original language. How would it be spelled in a Latin American country, to be pronounced "Jesus" rather than "Hessoos"?
Eh... For that matter, why don't we North Americans spell Mexico "Mehico"? Whatever.

[Gengar003]

We use the native spellings. Spanish has slightly different rules governing pronunciation than english, thus, words get pronounced in ways that don't make sense to us.

No idea how you'd spell "Jee-suhs" in spanish...

[The JAM]

[...unWARP!!!]

Good evening.


"Jee-suhs" would have to be written as "Lli-sos". Spanish only has 5 vowel sounds (not counting the 2 and 3 vowel combos), not 10+ that English does, so that "o" there is "rounding off to the nearest phoneme".

Consequently, Spanish is the only language I know that has the "j" sounding as the English "h" or "kh". The "j" was derived from the Latin "i", so I don't know what Keltic-Iberian influence caused the sound to shift from "i" or "y" to "h" or "kh".

The Spanish "x" has 4 possible sounds: ks, h, s, and sh. It was the Mexican Natives that gave it the last two. The native languages had a sound similar to "s" and "sh" but not quite the same as in Spanish, so when the monks were transcribing their records, they chose the letter that was least used: x.

[Kerry Skydancer]

[...unWARP!!!]
Good evening. That is actually typical of Latin Americans. "Hessoos" is the Spanish pronunciation of "Jesus". There was once an Argentinian government official whose name was "Espiritu Santo" = Holy Spirit.

And there is a person named "Jesus Tax", only you pronounced his name "Hesoos Tash"
<snip>

I have noticed when it comes to pronouncing hispanic names we gringos screw up a lot of them but manage to get "Hessoos"

I've wondered about that occasionally.
"Jesus" is a proper name, and as such should be pronounced as it would have been in its original language. How would it be spelled in a Latin American country, to be pronounced "Jesus" rather than "Hessoos"?

If you want to pronounce it in the original language, it should be (English phonemes) Yeshua, not Jesus. The Raconans pronounce the name more accurately than we do, as it turns out.

[The JAM]

[...unWARP!!!]

Good evening.


Not quite. Hebrew and Aramaic (and plenty of other Semitic languages) originally did not have symbols for vowel sounds. All the letters were consonants, and Ayin and Aleph were either silent or had a very light "h" sound. The letter Yod split into Y and I, and the letter Waw or Vav was originally a combination of the sounds W, V, O, and U (hence, you see some people say Osama and others Usama, and I think the original is Wsama). The vowel sounds you hear are more or less what was developed over time and then standardised some 2 centuries ago. In Strong's Concordance, the name "Jerusalem" is spelled Y-R-W-Sh-L-M, with 4 different vowel combinations (the Greek forms are Ierosoluma and Ierousalem. The name Nebuchadnezzar has the Spanish counterpart of Nabucodonosor, both taken from N-B-W-Kh-D-N-Z-R (I don't know what the original Babylonian name is, I'll check later tonight).


Yeshua is actually Y-Sh-W-' (Ayin at the end). Now, pronounce those letters together, and you'll hear a very light hint of the vowels e, u, and a.


[edit]

[checks]

Golly, the Hebrew form of Nebuchadnezzar has FIVE variants! I don't know what the original was in Chaldean, but the combinations that Strong's Concordance gives me are:

N-B-Kh-D-N-'-Tz-R
N-B-W-Kh-D-N-'-Tz-R
N-B-W-Kh-D-N-Tz-R
N-B-W-Kh-D-R-'-Tz-R, and
N-B-Kh-D-N-Tz-R

So if you're transcribing from Semitic to Roman, don't worry about misspelling vowels, he he.

[The JAM]

[...unWARP!!!]

Good evening.


Oh, and back to what you asked about "Mexico":

The name comes from the Mexica tribes that settled in the Central Lake Valley and the surrounding plateau, among them were the Nahuatl, the Tlaxcaltec, the Tenochca (built Tenochtitl

[Somber Cat]

Cindy's after three things. Two of them she's not going to get: Namely Bush's personal face to face apology and the troops withdrawn from Iraq. She shouldn't get them either. Presidents should not be held responsible for individual deaths in the field. Unless Bush flew to Iraq and wired that bomb himself or paid some one to do so, he didn't kill her son.

The third thing she's after is political accountability from the administration. What was known. When it was known. Why actions were taken in response to what was know. A sort of authoritative audit. This, she should get. When our nation is engaged in a conflict such as this, it is important to know that we have acted with forthrightness and virtue. That we are right to do this. Originally the white house claimed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Bush's own hand picked analysis and inspection expert David Lay states that not only did Saddam not have any weapons of mass destruction, but that Saddam completely lacked the infrastructure to ever produce one device, let alone the one every two months the white house predicted. The white house claimed that Saddam had substantive and long term ties with terrorists, Al quida in particular. The 9/11 comission found no such ties and that infact Osama had called numerous times for Saddam's assassination and revolution by the Sunni majority. The white house had promised that it had exhausted all diplomatic and economic means of resolution, but the Downing Street Memo infers that the invasion was green lighted as early as 2001 and that all that needed was the war to be sold to the American public.

If this is a legitimate war, then it is our responsibility and the responcibility of the administration in power to establish it thus. The rationel for the war was interests in national security. Not humanitarianism. Not intercession on behalf of an ally. Our nations' security was threatened and we acted to remove that threat. If that threat did not exist, or worse, if that threat was invented, then it is our obligation as Americans to hold those who acted on such assumptions accountable and remove them from power. It is to late to not invade, and as such we now have an obligation to the iraqis. But we also have an obligation to ourselves, our nation, and our soldiers to prove that we acted in good faith or to admit fault and take steps to prevent it.

"Let justice be done."

Somber

[RHJunior]

The third thing she's after is political accountability from the administration.... Originally the white house claimed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction....

Somber

Which was

1)The stand of every intelligence agency on earth.

2)Supported by Saddam's own obstructionist behavior

3)Only ONE of over a DOZEN reasons listed for the invasion.... including his proven support of terrorist organizations, his violation of every provision of the ceasefire agreement he signed at the end of the first Gulf War, and the fact that he had OPENED FIRE on American troops.

This is information that has been available for years, Sombercat. This is not ignorance speaking, it is sulky, childish refusal to accept the proven facts--- we did the right damn thing, went in, and removed a dangerous and evil man who threatened America and the world from power.

Cindy Sheehan, and her apologists, don't want to know "the truth." They want to know if there's any possible way to make the Iraq campaign look like a failure and blame Bush for it.

Even if it means treating our volunteer army of <I>grown men and women</i> like feckless children--- insulting their honor and sacrifice.


That's not "supporting the troops."


You want to know if this was a "Just War?" Just on the off chance that there's an actual sand-grain of sincerity in the midst of all that talk, start here:

http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/
Photoblog by an American trooper-- who, unlike most of the press, has seen more of Iraq than the bar of the Baghdad Hotel.

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
By an Iraqi citizen.

You want to see what an IRAQI thinks of Cindy Sheehan, start here:
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2005/0 ... eehan.html



"The same people who accused America of 'supporting tyrants' are now sputtering in bilious fury because she actually deposed one...."

[The JAM]

[...unWARP!!!]

Good evening.


And if it was ONLY for throwing mustard gas on Iraqi citizens, which included men, women, children, and babies (I'm sure those pictures were seen on every news agency on the planet), I, for one, am glad the USA threw him out.

[Somber Cat]

Every intelligence agency on earth? Really? So every intelligence agency on earth dropped the ball. There wasn't a single person who thought that there wasn't credible evidence that Saddam didn't have WMD? There wasn't even the possibility that Saddam's records might not be complete due to something as simplistic as poor record keeping under UN sanctions? There was no dissent? No 'wait a minute'? Every intelligence agency. Hmmm. Interesting.

Was Saddam a monster? Unquestionably. Was Saddam being a monster justification of an invasion, occupation, and extended conflict that has claimed nearly two thousand American lives and thousands of iraqis? After all, there is no shortage of monsters in the world. China is the most corrupt political organization in the world, founded upon the legitimacy of an ideology they have utterly abandoned. So we should invade and force a regime change there because they are monsters that imprison and execution democratic reformers without trial? And as I recall, Saddam being a monster seems rather secondary to the repetative claims of WMD and terrorists. And, of course, the claims this wasn't for oil. Regardless, it doesn't matter how much of a monster Saddam was to his own people. It doesn't matter if he danced naked while fisting kittens. He's was an iraqi problem. Internal. Now if he'd done so to Saudis, Jordanians, or American tourists / businessmen then it would no longer be an internal matter.

But I digress. This isn't about Saddam. This is about Accountability. Responsibility. Consequences. Now, you say the information is available and Bush's innocence apparent. Let him show it, not by meeting with Cindy Sheehan, but with a congressional grand jury. Let him provide, uncensored, unedited, all documents demanded by his detractors. Let him swear, under oath, before the senate and the American public that he has acted in good faith. That he did not manipulate the American public to force an illegitmate war. If, as you say, his innocence is so sterling and absolute that it will be apparent to all then it is in his and America's best interests for him to do so. Then he can move on to trying to fix the mess and his detractors can move on to other battlefields. Or, if his innocence is not to be found by a bipartisan grand jury, then other steps can be taken.

"Or is justice not worth your time?"

Somber

PS, interesting reading. I agree that Iraq has an opportunety now; a fleetingly breif window of opportunety. A chance to determine their future if they don't blow it. I believe that our soldiers should not be withdrawn until that window has passed. To do so and allow Iraq to devolve into anarchy would mean complete failure on our parts. And I am thrilled to know some of our soldiers have such opinions of Cindy. Regardless, the ends do not justify the means. You can cure aids by shooting every infected person in the head. A laudable end by unimmaginably monsterous means.

[Madmoonie]

This not about her son. This was never about her son. He was a grown man, not some babe pressganged into service. I almost feel sorry for her, because I am certain that she is being duped and almost brainwashed by those who want to use and abuse her loss, and her son's sacrifice. There are plenty other parents who reject her "crusade." One father had to repeatedly remove his son's name from the crosses, because they used his name without the father's permission, and did so twice after the father removed the cross. It does not matter how much evidence there is, becuase it no longer about this being a legimate war. This is about "I hate Bush and everything he is associated with" war. Intintions and plans of WMD were found in Iraq that were not widely reported, the man violated law after law after law of U.N. sanctions, and he butchered thousands of his people WITH CHEMICAL WEAPONS when they protested and tried their own way. Perhaps Bush should provide a step by step evidence of the reasons for war in front of the Senate, but I do not feel that it would matter if he did, becasue I do not think anyone who disagrees with him would want to listen.

[Kerry Skydancer]

This not about her son. This was never about her son. He was a grown man, not some babe pressganged into service. I almost feel sorry for her, because I am certain that she is being duped and almost brainwashed by those who want to use and abuse her loss, and her son's sacrifice. There are plenty other parents who reject her "crusade." One father had to repeatedly remove his son's name from the crosses, because they used his name without the father's permission, and did so twice after the father removed the cross. It does not matter how much evidence there is, becuase it no longer about this being a legimate war. This is about "I hate Bush and everything he is associated with" war. Intintions and plans of WMD were found in Iraq that were not widely reported, the man violated law after law after law of U.N. sanctions, and he butchered thousands of his people WITH CHEMICAL WEAPONS when they protested and tried their own way. Perhaps Bush should provide a step by step evidence of the reasons for war in front of the Senate, but I do not feel that it would matter if he did, becasue I do not think anyone who disagrees with him would want to listen.

Bush already provided a step-by-step justification for the war, two years ago in the State of the Union address. Those who didn't listen then don't want to hear it again now.

As for the rest of Sheehan's third point? No, she shouldn't get that either. We're in the middle of fighting a very tricky and PR-sensitive war, and some of the war aims would, if disseminated publicly, energize segments of our potential enemies who are currently quiescent. We don't get to find out all the details of this war until twenty years after it's over, on the History Channel. Giving Sheehan and her ilk - or even supporters like 1800 of the 1840 families who've lost people over there - serves no purpose but to breach security and get more people killed in the long run. The government has information that it cannot give out without costing lives; the public has to be mature enough to accept this and trust them to run it decently without a lot of carping second-guessing by editors and actors and opposition politicians who wouldn't acknowledge Operational Security Procedures if the manual was dropped on their heads at terminal velocity.

[Somber Cat]

Like Iraq, Cindy Sheehan's protests and the protests of others are from many causes and not all of them are sour grapes. It is about her son. It is about the role of America in the future. It is about political responsibility and accountability. It is about defining what it means to be a soldier. Cindy Sheehan undertook this of her own volition for her own reasons. Others have taken up this protest as well, for their own reasons. Some parents of slain soldiers share it. Others reject it. That is their perogative.

Likewise the goal of this protest range from emotional catharsis to the reform of a percieved corrupt and irresponsible government. Some want Bush Gone now, unable to stand the thought of the damage he may sow in three years. Others want the Republican party to realize the damage he is causing their platform by his rampant irresponsibility. Guilt by association as it were. Others are simply mad and this is their expression of that anger. Regardless, all their reactions and reasons stem from a wrongness in the way that Bush has handled Iraq.

Many of Bush's Step by step justifications for war have been proven false or distorted or simply nieve. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There were no credible ties between Saddam and Osama. The region has not stabilized; quite the contrary. Iran's political mood has shifted towards a hardliner in responce to having a hostile nation on two of its borders while Afganistan has increasing destabilized. Whether the withdrawl of Syria from Lebennon was the result of Iraq is questionable, as the social tensions have been building for years to expel Syria. Iraq has yet to build a democracy that is satisfactory to all parties involved, and thus far there is no end to the terrorists inspired to join this war against "devil occupiers". The attacks in Spain and England show the terrorists are not so diverted by Iraq as previously hoped. The UN resolutions violations are nothing new. We violate them and rulings by the World Court. If UN resolutions are so vital to uphold then you would think we would be more dilligent.

Now Impeachable evidence in the Downing Street memo has surfaced, leaked by Britian's version of deep throat throwing question on to the motives of the White House prior to the war. Did Bush know that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction? Did Bush even consider the question important? Or did he jump straight to guilty and started to sell a war against a nation that not only wasn't a threat but would be a threat? If this administration will lie and decieve you for its own goals on Iraq, then what other actions will it conduct irresponsably. Our nation was founded under the principle that the government is responsible and accountable to the public. That is, to you and me. Trust has been lost. Thus an accounting is demanded. Children trust implicitly. Mature people hold others responsible for their actions.

If Bush is innocent, and his administration merely the unluckiest and inept since Carter then let him prove it by answering a grand jury before an entire American public, under oath, to questions by his detractors. If he can, then I will conceed and defer to congress. If he can not, then I wish articles of impeachment drawn against him and as many members of his cabnet complicit in his guilt.

"You held Clinton accountable for semen on a dress. Why is holding Bush accountable for nearly two thousand lives so irrational in comparison?"

Somber

[Kerry Skydancer]

Like Iraq, Cindy Sheehan's protests and the protests of others are from many causes and not all of them are sour grapes. It is about her son. It is about the role of America in the future. It is about political responsibility and accountability. It is about defining what it means to be a soldier. Cindy Sheehan undertook this of her own volition for her own reasons. Others have taken up this protest as well, for their own reasons. Some parents of slain soldiers share it. Others reject it. That is their prerogative.

Agreed, not all of the protests are from sour grapes; some of them are people who honestly believe what they're saying. (In other words, from various combinations of gross ignorance of the facts, denial of reality, or sheer lunacy.) A fair number, though, are just doing this because they Hate Bush. Cindy Sheehan appears to fall into the sheer lunacy category, though in her case it seems to be due in part to honest grief allowed to turn into a toxic stew by media types who do not have her best interests in mind.

Likewise the goal of this protest range from emotional catharsis to the reform of a percieved corrupt and irresponsible government. Some want Bush Gone now, unable to stand the thought of the damage he may sow in three years. Others want the Republican party to realize the damage he is causing their platform by his rampant irresponsibility. Guilt by association as it were. Others are simply mad and this is their expression of that anger. Regardless, all their reactions and reasons stem from a wrongness in the way that Bush has handled Iraq.

Key there is perceived wrongness/damage/corruption. These people do not seem to have any actual facts to back up their perceptions, and the Republicans, having done very well in the last three elections, fail to understand in what way they are supposed to have been damaged.

Many of Bush's Step by step justifications for war have been proven false or distorted or simply nieve. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There were no credible ties between Saddam and Osama. The region has not stabilized; quite the contrary. Iran's political mood has shifted towards a hardliner in responce to having a hostile nation on two of its borders while Afganistan has increasing destabilized. Whether the withdrawl of Syria from Lebennon was the result of Iraq is questionable, as the social tensions have been building for years to expel Syria. Iraq has yet to build a democracy that is satisfactory to all parties involved, and thus far there is no end to the terrorists inspired to join this war against "devil occupiers". The attacks in Spain and England show the terrorists are not so diverted by Iraq as previously hoped. The UN resolutions violations are nothing new. We violate them and rulings by the World Court. If UN resolutions are so vital to uphold then you would think we would be more dilligent.

Ah, yes, it's time for the obligatory litany of Bush Lied memes, which have been either debunked on the facts or which were manufactured out of thin air in the first place.

No WMD's? Hussein had them, you know. He used them on the Kurds. He was required to account for them. He didn't. There was no evidence that he'd disposed of them or stopped trying to get new ones, he equipped his troops for a gas environment, small stockpiles have been found (and ignored by the press for the most part), and there was the plume of material recorded in the Tigris early in the attack. No, we haven't found obvious dumps labelled Saddam's Secret WMD Stash. No one ever expected to.

No credible ties between Al Qaida and Hussein is both false and irrelevant. Even if you decide to ignore the evidence that's been located demonstrating those links, it was never a point in the first place. Hussein had ties to terrorism against Americans and Israelis, having provided cash to the Palestinian suicide bomber program and safe haven to the mastermind of the Achille Lauro attack, just for starters.

The regime has not been stabilized? Neither was Germany two years after 1945. Are you suggesting that this proves that the Normandy Invasion was a failure? We're coming along fine, even if it hasn't all gone according to plan. Nothing ever does, you know. Or maybe you don't know.

Iraq is developing a 'hardline' attitude? Wouldn't -you- if a bunch of terrorists kept blowing your people up while claiming to be attacking Americans? This is a feature, not a bug.

Syria didn't withdraw from Lebanon because of what happened in Iraq? Says you. Some of us think it had an effect. You left out Libya, there. That one was a coincidence too, I suppose? In spite of Qaddafi himself saying that it was a factor in his decision?

Iraq hasn't built a democracy yet! Oh, no! They've been working on it less than a year. It took us 20, y'know, and we had the institutions already in place. This isn't a TV show where everything's fixed up in time for the closing credits.

There's no end to the terrorists! Demonstrably untrue, if you bother to look at anything other than the likes of the New York Times. Most of the country is peaceful, and the locals are preventing the terrorists from operating most places. I've got two cousins who've been over there, and they both report that the areas of terrorist ops have been shrinking for the most part, and that most of the terrorists are outsiders, not Iraqis.

Expanded terrorist operations! Spain and England were soft targets, Spain especially so. And if Spain had reacted with a backbone, the British attacks might never have occurred. Plus, it appears that both were done locally, the overall Al Qaida command having been decimated. The point is, most of these people were in place even before the Iraq invasion, and are the ones that haven't yet been caught. All the terrorist cells who -have- been caught are obviously not spectacular news - how do you make a dramatic headline out of 'No Bombings Again Today'? Especially if your editors are in the We Hate Bush camp in the first place? Can't admit he's done something mostly right, after all.

Now, this is interesting. We violate UN resolutions, do we? Which ones? When? Cites, please. We generally veto anything we don't like, after all - we can. I might even agree with you on the general principle, though, since I've got little use for the United Nitwits. But Hussein was also in violation of ceasefire agreements signed with -us-. We do regularly ignore the World Court, I'll agree - but it has no jurisdiction over the United States even if we pay it lip service now and then, and the rulings we ignore generally are ones that have been passed on the basis of America and Israel Must Be Wrong.

Now Impeachable evidence in the Downing Street memo has surfaced, leaked by Britian's version of deep throat throwing question on to the motives of the White House prior to the war. Did Bush know that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction? Did Bush even consider the question important? Or did he jump straight to guilty and started to sell a war against a nation that not only wasn't a threat but would be a threat? If this administration will lie and decieve you for its own goals on Iraq, then what other actions will it conduct irresponsably. Our nation was founded under the principle that the government is responsible and accountable to the public. That is, to you and me. Trust has been lost. Thus an accounting is demanded. Children trust implicitly. Mature people hold others responsible for their actions.

Was that intentional? You're quite right, the Downing Street Memo is a very impeachable source. You'll note that it was written as a memo by one of the most left-wing members of Blair's cabinet, and that the cabinet as a whole did indeed disagree with its conclusions. The rest of this paragraph is a version of 'have you stopped beating your wife', and assumes things to be facts which are not in evidence.

If Bush is innocent, and his administration merely the unluckiest and inept since Carter then let him prove it by answering a grand jury before an entire American public, under oath, to questions by his detractors. If he can, then I will conceed and defer to congress. If he can not, then I wish articles of impeachment drawn against him and as many members of his cabnet complicit in his guilt.

I will point to the comment I made two posts up - in brief, you do not do a public inquisition of war aims, goals, and methods in the middle of the freakin' war, especially by letting the least sane members of the opposition run the inquisition!!! The Congress does not seem to think that his conduct warrants censure, let alone impeachment. If you're willing to let them have the say after your absurd little scenario, why not trust them now?

"You held Clinton accountable for semen on a dress. Why is holding Bush accountable for nearly two thousand lives so irrational in comparison?"
Somber

Actually, Clinton was held accountable for lying under oath, which the stained dress proved, about a matter to which his activities involving said dress were germaine. If he'd admitted to doing what he did, the problem would never have arisen.

Bush has not, in spite of all the oft-repeated claims above, lied under oath, or even in public. He is certainly accountable for the military lives lost under his command. The military seems to think they were justified, and they're the ones most affected. Unless you have actual evidence to the contrary, as opposed to hysterics, I will accept their view of the matter.

[StrangeWulf13]

How dare you. Comparing George Bush to Jimmy Carter. You are either stupid or willfully blind.

Carter chose appeasement time after time. Because of him, we lost Iran as an ally. The previous ruler was bad, but those who threw him out are worse. The man's policies were that of a coward. He would've sold America to her enemies if it meant avoiding war.

Bush took action when our nation was attacked, sending troops into Afghanistan and later Iraq to help prevent the terrorists from having secure hiding places. Bin Laden hasn't been heard from in a while now. Some think he's dead; others think he's hiding. Saddam himself is going to stand trial in front of his own people, if he hasn't done so already.

And you dare to compare Bush with Carter. Have you no shame? Or are you simply missing the gray matter between your ears?

The rest of you can debate this guy if you like. I'm already sick of him. If you do though, I suggest you demand proof from him. Surely he has some links to back up his statements, yes?

Somber, you are a fool. I have nothing more to say to you. My end of this "conversation" is terminated.

[Somber Cat]

If that is your decision and opinion Wulf, so be it. If you read a little closer you may discern that I was refering to Carter's administration as unlucky and inept. He was a good man at the wrong time and place who listened to the wrong people and caused a national mess that Reagan was thankfully able to inspire us out of. I may not agree with many of Reagan's policies, but I do give him credit for that. And in advance, I won't hash out Reagan's pros and cons. He's dead. It's passed. Bigger and worse problems to deal with.

Kerry, you bring up some very good points. Let me adress some of them before I call it a night.

You are right. Percieved. Perception shapes reality. And their facts are as factual as you care to believe they are. Is the glass half full or half empty? Is the grass greener on this side or that side. So much strife and bile is the result of differences of opinion. You say the person who wrote the downing street report was a hard leftist? I couldn't find the author anywhere, and if you mean Blairs chief of intelligence Clare Martin he seems far more right of center than left. Two different points of view on the same subject.

As far as the litany of lies, again, it's perception and splitting hairs. Yes, Saddam had WMD that WE gave to him. He did not have the infrastructure in place to mass produce more, and he certainly didn't have anything close to a nuke. David Lay confirms this. Iraqi nuclear scientists confirm this.

the ties were also found as non-credable by the 9/11 comission. and sure, he was harboring terrorists. China has often accused the US of the same. The 'terrorists' in question are democratic reformers. Any one can be a terrorist to any one else. Again, perception.

Hmm. Need to speed this up.

Stabilization: Perception.

Iraq attitude: Perception.

Democracy: Perception.

No end to the terrorists: Perception.

Expanded terrorist Operations: Fact. There have been more terrorist related attacks and deaths abroad following 9/11 than before it. fortunately none of them have approached 9/11 in magnitude, yet. (a word very often used in objections, I grant you, but with little evidence to the contrary the feeling of inevitablity is hard to shake off. A perception.)

violation of UN resolution: Actually, you were right. I misread. You are correct that the US, China, France, and Russia commonly veto UN resolutions that threaten their interests. America vetoed 48 from 1970 to the present. Nations that DO violate UN resolutions with great regularity seem to be predominately Israel and Turkey.

(I'm not going to hash out israel on this thread. It's a mess, but I have a grain of hope that things might work out for the best there. I have the same hope for Iraq and America, I just guard them far more closely.)

War? Was not victory declaired? Mission accomplished? Saddam in Jail? Bad guy gone? This is the police action now. But again, perception.

Very simply, the only reason I can conclude that Bush hasn't been impeached is partisian politics. The Republicans are (through fear, ignorance, or corruption; take your pick) unwilling to hold the president accountable for his actions. The 9/11 comission questions of Bush and Cheney were incredibly soft, purposefully avoiding incriminating questions. To be expected when the questions are fielded by members of your own party who are acting NOT as the check as they were intended. If the president were a member of the opposing party, I have no doubt that they would have long ago drawn up articles of impeachment, and likely removed him from office.

By the by, ironically enough, Clinton didn't lie. The grand jury defined sex as vaginal penitration before the question was asked, so clinton's response was legally true. Such distinctions are beyond the scope of public perspective, particularly in light of predominately conservative media. But I digress, and it is WAY too late for digressions at this point.

The black/ white perceptions of this war and the perceieved guilt and inability of republicans to hold Bush accountable or answerable to his detractors in causing significant harm to this nation. Not simply in soldiers deaths and money, but in national identity and virtue. We want to believe that our nation is not just a strong nation, but a good nation as well. With so much mud in the waters slung from both sides it is imperitive that the virtue of this nation and the responsibility of its executive branch be assessed. This can only be done by the opposition. If they can not prove Bush's guilt when they are in charge of the forum, then they do not have any legitimacy in their objection after the fact.

"Proof beyond a shadow of a doubt."

Somber.

[Tbolt]

So let me get this straight, the

[Maxgoof]

One of the guys at work is named Jesus, but he pronounces it Hay-soos.

Anyway - that just shows that some people do name their kids after a Deity!

Jesus is nothing more than a Greek version of Joshua. Jesus was given that name to show that he was picking up the gauntlet last held by Joshua, who had taken it up from Moses, who had taken it up from Joseph (Jacob's favorite son).

Clear?