Funny, we switced a number of our corporate domains before the ad, and I switched my domain afterward.
In full disclosure I am switching. While Go Daddy offered excellent support, I can't say that has been the case lately. When we transfered the corporate domains away from Go Daddy, they marked that they needed our intervention though they never put the email through. And currently I am in the throws with them about their domain proxy *losing* the emails being sent to corroborate the transfer.
Then there was a problem with them (as in it worked for 15 months then stopped working) and DNS hosting. On the phone they couldn't explain why it broke, but suggested that upgrading to a hosting service would fix things.
And though Candice Michelle's silicone makes for a pretty good billboard, it really killed the really cool thing they had going for them -- they were simply the best and people gravitated to them for it. Now that they are relying on cleavage to draw attention instead of their service, they have me worried.
BTW, I switched to HostSite who is cheaper than Go Daddy and has been very helpful. Theres more than a dozen places out there (that I could find) that were cheaper when I looked.
I'm just pointing out that the link was questionable... that's exactly what I want. Biased information so I can feel good about all those pre-concieved notions I have about other people.
Yes you were weren't you. Yet I am left to question if an enlightened seeker of truth, the truely non-partisan would consider right-wing as synonomous with "questionable". In fact you didn't even raise a question, it looked more like partisan discounting to me.
If I am in error, then please accept my appologies.
You get points for quoting "terrorism isn't a noun" Stewart though. Probably no one exemplifies the disinformation more than his unfunny show. Simply put, the war in Iraq was not started on forged documents. I think the fact that this is a generally understood fact is reason enough to keep "gate" from the end of it. The road to war was in motion long before the memos came out.
But he does have a point, the forged Nigerian documents have been traced to French operatives. Perhaps "French-gate" would be a good title. The fact that Saddam was trying to purchase Uranium was independantly corroberated by the Senate Intelligence committee and an independant review in England.
These independant reviews linked Saddam and Osama also. But probably the most indicting information comes from Osama's latest video where he mentions his operatives in Iraq.
Or perhaps "France-gate" is a better term for the oil-for-palaces program of the UN.
But hey, at least the Abu-Graib scandal is being prosecuted in the media. Where is this bias again?
All well and good, with thanks and such. The more information the better.
Then again there is nothing like a shrill "Fox News" to ring up the sycophants for dinner. Sure enough he doesn't even mention any distortions in particular, just the invocation of the evil "Fox News". Wow,
**Yawn**
But Disinfopedia does do some documentation but then MRC does too, so both are quite a bit better. But "right-wing" or "liberal" is always a surrogate argument, and petty cliquishness if you ask me. That people argue over if something is "right wing" or "leftist" rather than the distortions themselves is too reminiscent of the cola-wars of middle-school playgrounds for my taste.
Wow, what an explicitly non-response response -- virtually un-differentiable from a rant that the media isn't liberal enough. Or rather a general complaint that liberalism should triumph when it comes in conflict with reality. In which case you can cry me a river and float away on it.
But taking it on face value, it is also inconsistent.
it's just a shill group looking to discredit any media organization that dares to print something that sounds even vaguely liberal.
is contradicted by...
They count instances of supposed bias by determining if both sides of an argument were presented.
I'm not going to presume to excuse them for their selection process, but by all means the falsified Bush Memo's presented by CBS is the hands down winner of disinformative journalism.
You see, when it comes down to it, I don't care what you call "liberal" or what you call "right wing". Jamie's article alone sets the president for factual representation when he considers if it is scientific or not. And as far as I'm concerned that is the only dimension I care about when it comes to journalism.
There was someone who knew how to make science understandable and fun. Probably no one since Bunsen Honeydew attracted people to get down and dirty with science.
In the end the media is just a reflection of their audience, a government the reflection of their constituency. And Jon Stewart? Isn't his request to "stop hurting America" kind of like a butcher preaching to the slaughterhouse? I mean, Stewart is the person who coined the phrase, "terrorism isn't a noun".
DogDude didn't relay a point, other than he's ignorant of why people put spoilers on front wheel cars (As if the answer is different than rear wheel cars).
No, a front wheel car is not in danger of doing a wheelie, but the wheelie bars do help keep the front wheels from lifting and losing traction.
From NHRA magazine (talking about the for-runner for the car pictured in the link)
Bergenholtz earned his nickname when he and his brother, Ron, reinvented the wheelie bar and then broke the 10-second benchmark in the quarter-mile. Wheelie bars are like car training wheels. They trail behind a dragster, preventing it from tipping over backwards on launch. The Bergenholtz brothers put wheelie bars on their '89 Honda CRX - a front-wheel-drive car, which, by definition, cannot wheelie. On a front-wheel-drive car, the (now slightly misnomered) wheelie bars shift the center of gravity forward. They prevent the rear shocks from compressing at launch. This is, in fact, genius in its simplicity: Gain traction by planting the front end more firmly on the tarmac.
Moral of the story? When someone complains he doesn't see a reason for something, that is not a point its an admition of ignorance.
As to your point about caving in the rear deck, they can handle the weight of a 300lb person, at most denting the sheet metal. 300lb of downforce is quite a bit.
That said, they are probably superflous on many cars. But I'm not going to go parading my ignorance by laughing at it. You never know.
You rang? Funny where this stuff pops up. Always quality entertainment when it does.
Hmmm, interesting JE indeed. I point people to it quite a bit myself. Tom and his posse spend 90+ posts astroturfing and trying to distract people from his failures, anditwindsupbackfiring.
I gained many friends that day. Mad Poster and Tom (if they are different people who have the same reflex to run to their Journals whenever anyone starts pounding on them) were the only ones that cared. And between them have spent around a dozen JE's on little old me.
Well and the AC cares, and who should deny AC such barrel-fish sport? As for the post in question, I still find it funny "I'm a different AC than the other post". Tom has such a fear of the AC (which is shown by PTDS reaction in this thread) that he litterally jumps whenever AC says 'boo'. Who wouldn't want in on the action?
All in all, I couldn't ask for a more fortunate mistake;) And no, Tom the mistake wasn't in not hitting the 'post anyonymously' button... You crack me up.
That is vague, you should be sorry. Direct quotes would be helpful in illustrating your point (should you decide to stay on one long enough). As I mentioned before vague handwaving is just you asking me to do your work for you. Your a big person now, you can tell me what you want me to get out of those articles:)
My previious statment can be clarified thusly "you can't keep terms straight, and they are all synonyms (to you, as far as I can tell)." That help?
That isn't a clarification, that is simply switching sides again. Now you simply deny I've made a distinction again.
Just to illustrate your jump back to blindness I will show how your questions are answered in the quote you provided (which is complete this time, to your credit).
So, what part of Islam or percentage of Muslims believe in nationalistic expansion?
how much depends on who you talk to.
Is there another, more specific term for people that put such things into practice?
Probably the best way I can explain it
"Islam is to Muslim what Protestant is to Christianity." Except that makes no sense
Well that just explains that Islam is a subset of Muslim [This was provided when you brought this up previously, I'll add. When you rehashing refuted arguments it doesn't support them, it just makes you look ignorant.]
So again, and I think we up to 5 requests now
Five requests (probably more), each made after it was already answered;) You can't erase an answer by reiterating the question.
No you aren't a troll. Trolls do this kind of thing for attention and fun. Being a KDub is different, it is more synonymous with fatuous. And unintentionally so. Probably most synonymous with Palooka.
Now, any more clarification needed? There is no difference between what the Dictionary, Wiki, and I say about the definitions of Islam and Muslim.
Which dictionary did you pull your definitions from? They are rather sloppy and informal. I'm not sure they came from a reputable source.
A Muslin is a person who practices the religion of Islam.
You just said in the post above that they are synonyms. What were your words again, "you can't keep terms straight, and they are all synonyms." I hope you meant your post as a correction.
To say that all Muslims are Islamists, as you seem to believe
Your putting words in others mouths again. you were the one that thinks they are the same. Indeed you called them synonyms. What were your words again? Ah yes here they are, "you can't keep terms straight, and they are all synonyms."
Ah yes, that was to refute my laying a distinction I laid out previously that you have now fliped back to refusing to admit exists. This is the fourth time you've gone back and forth, acusing me of both. I wonder, do you have any doubt that it shows you as making reckless accusations when you have to alternate between two contradictory charges?
There is but one word that desribes your rhetoric, but it is somewhat of an inside joke at Poliglut. We call it 'KDubbian Rhetoric' named after probably the worst debater ever seen on the internet. Though you haven't quite yet achieved KDub's ability to post to articles that refute your own point, I dare say you are mighty feirce competition for her in that you are contradicting yourself without even blinking. Indeed, there has been no one else that even comes close in all my wanderings of the Internet. I suppose you can mark that with distinction, though it is not a flattering one.
Oh my. I've not seen someone forget so much without a sevier blow to the head.
I guess that explains why you keep asking me 'what is the point', and you keep missing it.
I keep asking you what the point is becuase you keep diverting from it;) Now really, you've gone from saying I have defined the terms to saying I haven't, to saying I have and then haven't again. Again you are projecting personal problems.
Three terms. Give me your defintions.
Oh, one to make demands now are we? Did you stomp your feet and pout when writing that? Did you put on your angry eyebrows?
If there were problems with the distinction *already* provided then I'm happy to clear them up, and already have. Your last disagreement over the distinction raised, if you recall, was a created from intentionally losing parts of what you were quoting. That was easily cleared up.
Did I miss any problem in particular? You'll have to enumerate them. And no, vague references to dictionaries does not an enumeration make;) I'm not going to do your work for you. Your inability to make coherent points, and flagrantly fatuous accusations is already noted. I'm not going to save you from your own lack of cooth and comprehension skills.
Then when you show where you need clarification we can proceed. But this pretending that I haven't provided the distinction you are asking for is getting childish. Well if you don't mind being childish then I suppose there is no use in pointing that out. But there is hope that somewhere underneath the "ignorance at any cost" refutations and "any port in a storm" reckless accusations there might be some ingenuousness to appeal to. Maybe not, but we can hope.
By the way, the problem with pretending not to see something (such as the distinction I made between muslim and islam) is always vulnerable to people who do see it;)
Just some more free advice before you completely hang yourself on this vain attempt.
As you've yet again failed to differentiate any terms or distinction.
Not only are you horrible at faux-naif, you aren't even origional. Noticing you hadn't made and differentiation, I pointed this out many posts ago. I think I've nailed down your business model...
1) Fill your posts with problematic logic and incoherent reasoning (glued together with vain accusations) 2) Grep responce that points out your errors for more accusations to throw 3) ??? 4) Profit!
The evidence that Iraq had WMDs. It all came from the Iraqi National Congress
They did have a hand in it, and I agree we took them too much for their word. I hope everyone has learned a lesson from this.
Two counter points though, considering Kay's report I'm of the opinion that Saddam himself was being lied to as to whether or not he had stockpiles. Though the INC was lying, the corroborative chatter from Iraq was too for much different reasons, Saddam *wanted to have* chemical weapons.
I claimed he was duped, and he won't admit it.
Actually Bush, Powell and others have spoken for the White House in saying where they were and weren't mislead. Bush admits there are and probably weren't stockpiles of WMD's. Powell admits that some of his information was not accurate.
However, that doesn't lead to an appology for the war, and it shouldn't. For instance the press seems to think that anything but a soccer field full of warheads with cartoonish skull and bones on them is "no WMD's found". You can watch the headlines of press conferances where WMD's are found and disclosed, and yet when they say "no stockpiles of WMD's" the press slaps the headline "No WMD's found".
But there have been WMD's found. Near 20 chemical warheads, hundreds of empty chemical warheads, and a number of contraban rockets. The potential to make WMD's was closely protected by Saddam, and according to every single scientist they talked to, Saddam was ready to begin production the second sanctions were lifted (which France, Germany, and Russia had already been lobbying for since 1998). And Saddam, according to Blix, still was non-compliant in verifying the destruction and accountability demanded in 1441.
There is simply no reason to appologize for the Iraq war. Ding-dong the Saddam is behind bars. Liberty is in labor pains in Iraq, but soon to be born. And, a number of countries have stood up to take notice that they will be held accountable.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny, we switced a number of our corporate domains before the ad, and I switched my domain afterward.
In full disclosure I am switching. While Go Daddy offered excellent support, I can't say that has been the case lately. When we transfered the corporate domains away from Go Daddy, they marked that they needed our intervention though they never put the email through. And currently I am in the throws with them about their domain proxy *losing* the emails being sent to corroborate the transfer.
Then there was a problem with them (as in it worked for 15 months then stopped working) and DNS hosting. On the phone they couldn't explain why it broke, but suggested that upgrading to a hosting service would fix things.
And though Candice Michelle's silicone makes for a pretty good billboard, it really killed the really cool thing they had going for them -- they were simply the best and people gravitated to them for it. Now that they are relying on cleavage to draw attention instead of their service, they have me worried.
BTW, I switched to HostSite who is cheaper than Go Daddy and has been very helpful. Theres more than a dozen places out there (that I could find) that were cheaper when I looked.
Now there is an idea. Amidts these giants, Megatron is simply some tiny robot with a napoleon complex.
If I may add,
Clunky Plot Devices - E.g. Fortune telling old shaman type character that fortells doom but is never right.
Bad dialogue - E.g. Translation is one thing, but to hear the incessant grunting of one of the members in the dialogue gets old very quickly.
That said, I did like Outlaw Star, KaleidoStar, Cowboy Bebop, and the stuff I watched when I was a teenager before I learned better.
Documented does not mean "throwing Kos headlines like spaghetti against a wall hoping something sticks".
But okay I'll hit one of them...
The media did not cover some issues that were damaging to Bush, while it continued to focus on "Swift Boat Vets"
The media didn't concentrate on the SWB's, as the MRC points out and documents.
I'm just pointing out that the link was questionable ... that's exactly what I want. Biased information so I can feel good about all those pre-concieved notions I have about other people.
Yes you were weren't you. Yet I am left to question if an enlightened seeker of truth, the truely non-partisan would consider right-wing as synonomous with "questionable". In fact you didn't even raise a question, it looked more like partisan discounting to me.
If I am in error, then please accept my appologies.
You get points for quoting "terrorism isn't a noun" Stewart though. Probably no one exemplifies the disinformation more than his unfunny show. Simply put, the war in Iraq was not started on forged documents. I think the fact that this is a generally understood fact is reason enough to keep "gate" from the end of it. The road to war was in motion long before the memos came out.
But he does have a point, the forged Nigerian documents have been traced to French operatives. Perhaps "French-gate" would be a good title. The fact that Saddam was trying to purchase Uranium was independantly corroberated by the Senate Intelligence committee and an independant review in England.
These independant reviews linked Saddam and Osama also. But probably the most indicting information comes from Osama's latest video where he mentions his operatives in Iraq.
Or perhaps "France-gate" is a better term for the oil-for-palaces program of the UN.
But hey, at least the Abu-Graib scandal is being prosecuted in the media. Where is this bias again?
All well and good, with thanks and such. The more information the better.
Then again there is nothing like a shrill "Fox News" to ring up the sycophants for dinner. Sure enough he doesn't even mention any distortions in particular, just the invocation of the evil "Fox News". Wow,
**Yawn**
But Disinfopedia does do some documentation but then MRC does too, so both are quite a bit better. But "right-wing" or "liberal" is always a surrogate argument, and petty cliquishness if you ask me. That people argue over if something is "right wing" or "leftist" rather than the distortions themselves is too reminiscent of the cola-wars of middle-school playgrounds for my taste.
I take back every bad thing I said about him then. I wonder if he's even still alive.
Wow, what an explicitly non-response response -- virtually un-differentiable from a rant that the media isn't liberal enough. Or rather a general complaint that liberalism should triumph when it comes in conflict with reality. In which case you can cry me a river and float away on it.
But taking it on face value, it is also inconsistent.
it's just a shill group looking to discredit any media organization that dares to print something that sounds even vaguely liberal.
is contradicted by...
They count instances of supposed bias by determining if both sides of an argument were presented.
I'm not going to presume to excuse them for their selection process, but by all means the falsified Bush Memo's presented by CBS is the hands down winner of disinformative journalism.
You see, when it comes down to it, I don't care what you call "liberal" or what you call "right wing". Jamie's article alone sets the president for factual representation when he considers if it is scientific or not. And as far as I'm concerned that is the only dimension I care about when it comes to journalism.
What were the distortions in Bush's favor?
Mr Wizard was interesting, but the most dangerous thing he did (and showed us how to do) was light a candle.
I don't remember him having a show, though. He just came on with little bits between episodes of "You Can't Do That on Television".
I can agree with a lot of what you said. You did pretty well until you succumbed to the worn out rut of singling out Fox news.
I bring you The Top Ten Media Distortions of Campaign 2004.
There was someone who knew how to make science understandable and fun. Probably no one since Bunsen Honeydew attracted people to get down and dirty with science.
In the end the media is just a reflection of their audience, a government the reflection of their constituency. And Jon Stewart? Isn't his request to "stop hurting America" kind of like a butcher preaching to the slaughterhouse? I mean, Stewart is the person who coined the phrase, "terrorism isn't a noun".
Didint think so.
Wheelie bars are illegal for public roads.
DogDude didn't relay a point, other than he's ignorant of why people put spoilers on front wheel cars (As if the answer is different than rear wheel cars).
One place you won't see "ricer" nonsense is on the drag racing track. But you will see wheelie bars and spoilers on front wheel cars.
No, a front wheel car is not in danger of doing a wheelie, but the wheelie bars do help keep the front wheels from lifting and losing traction.
From NHRA magazine (talking about the for-runner for the car pictured in the link)
Moral of the story? When someone complains he doesn't see a reason for something, that is not a point its an admition of ignorance.
As to your point about caving in the rear deck, they can handle the weight of a 300lb person, at most denting the sheet metal. 300lb of downforce is quite a bit.
That said, they are probably superflous on many cars. But I'm not going to go parading my ignorance by laughing at it. You never know.
I am sooo looking forward to seeing Ben Stein as the psycologist take on the wacko (forgot his name) IRL!!!
You rang? Funny where this stuff pops up. Always quality entertainment when it does.
;) And no, Tom the mistake wasn't in not hitting the 'post anyonymously' button... You crack me up.
Hmmm, interesting JE indeed. I point people to it quite a bit myself. Tom and his posse spend 90+ posts astroturfing and trying to distract people from his failures, and it winds up backfiring.
I gained many friends that day. Mad Poster and Tom (if they are different people who have the same reflex to run to their Journals whenever anyone starts pounding on them) were the only ones that cared. And between them have spent around a dozen JE's on little old me.
Well and the AC cares, and who should deny AC such barrel-fish sport? As for the post in question, I still find it funny "I'm a different AC than the other post". Tom has such a fear of the AC (which is shown by PTDS reaction in this thread) that he litterally jumps whenever AC says 'boo'. Who wouldn't want in on the action?
All in all, I couldn't ask for a more fortunate mistake
Unfortunate he named his site after his handle. It makes discussing "the Kos" quite ambiguous at times.
Islam. Dictionary 1 Wikipedia Dictionary 2
Sorry, for being so vague.
That is vague, you should be sorry. Direct quotes would be helpful in illustrating your point (should you decide to stay on one long enough). As I mentioned before vague handwaving is just you asking me to do your work for you. Your a big person now, you can tell me what you want me to get out of those articles
My previious statment can be clarified thusly "you can't keep terms straight, and they are all synonyms (to you, as far as I can tell)." That help?
That isn't a clarification, that is simply switching sides again. Now you simply deny I've made a distinction again.
Just to illustrate your jump back to blindness I will show how your questions are answered in the quote you provided (which is complete this time, to your credit).
So, what part of Islam or percentage of Muslims believe in nationalistic expansion?
Is there another, more specific term for people that put such things into practice?
"Islam is to Muslim what Protestant is to Christianity." Except that makes no sense
So again, and I think we up to 5 requests now
Five requests (probably more), each made after it was already answered
No you aren't a troll. Trolls do this kind of thing for attention and fun. Being a KDub is different, it is more synonymous with fatuous. And unintentionally so. Probably most synonymous with Palooka.
Now, any more clarification needed? There is no difference between what the Dictionary, Wiki, and I say about the definitions of Islam and Muslim.
Which dictionary did you pull your definitions from? They are rather sloppy and informal. I'm not sure they came from a reputable source.
A Muslin is a person who practices the religion of Islam.
You just said in the post above that they are synonyms. What were your words again, "you can't keep terms straight, and they are all synonyms." I hope you meant your post as a correction.
To say that all Muslims are Islamists, as you seem to believe
Your putting words in others mouths again. you were the one that thinks they are the same. Indeed you called them synonyms. What were your words again? Ah yes here they are, "you can't keep terms straight, and they are all synonyms."
Ah yes, that was to refute my laying a distinction I laid out previously that you have now fliped back to refusing to admit exists. This is the fourth time you've gone back and forth, acusing me of both. I wonder, do you have any doubt that it shows you as making reckless accusations when you have to alternate between two contradictory charges?
There is but one word that desribes your rhetoric, but it is somewhat of an inside joke at Poliglut. We call it 'KDubbian Rhetoric' named after probably the worst debater ever seen on the internet. Though you haven't quite yet achieved KDub's ability to post to articles that refute your own point, I dare say you are mighty feirce competition for her in that you are contradicting yourself without even blinking. Indeed, there has been no one else that even comes close in all my wanderings of the Internet. I suppose you can mark that with distinction, though it is not a flattering one.
;)
is that you can't keep terms straight, and they are all synonyms.
Really? So I say; "I had dinner with a very cordial Muslim last night", just as well as, "I had dinner with a very cordial Islam last night?"
The answer, of course, is no. Then they are not synonyms.
Oh my. I've not seen someone forget so much without a sevier blow to the head.
;) Now really, you've gone from saying I have defined the terms to saying I haven't, to saying I have and then haven't again. Again you are projecting personal problems.
;) I'm not going to do your work for you. Your inability to make coherent points, and flagrantly fatuous accusations is already noted. I'm not going to save you from your own lack of cooth and comprehension skills.
I guess that explains why you keep asking me 'what is the point', and you keep missing it.
I keep asking you what the point is becuase you keep diverting from it
Three terms. Give me your defintions.
Oh, one to make demands now are we? Did you stomp your feet and pout when writing that? Did you put on your angry eyebrows?
If there were problems with the distinction *already* provided then I'm happy to clear them up, and already have. Your last disagreement over the distinction raised, if you recall, was a created from intentionally losing parts of what you were quoting. That was easily cleared up.
Did I miss any problem in particular? You'll have to enumerate them. And no, vague references to dictionaries does not an enumeration make
Then when you show where you need clarification we can proceed. But this pretending that I haven't provided the distinction you are asking for is getting childish. Well if you don't mind being childish then I suppose there is no use in pointing that out. But there is hope that somewhere underneath the "ignorance at any cost" refutations and "any port in a storm" reckless accusations there might be some ingenuousness to appeal to. Maybe not, but we can hope.
Again, your definition completely contradicts what is in the dictionary
Not really, but that is beside the point.
You can't be, and seem to blame me for this failure.
You claimed it didn't exist, and in new found honesty has jogged your memory. Indeed, that seems to be a personal problem.
By the way, the problem with pretending not to see something (such as the distinction I made between muslim and islam) is always vulnerable to people who do see it ;)
Just some more free advice before you completely hang yourself on this vain attempt.
As you've yet again failed to differentiate any terms or distinction.
Not only are you horrible at faux-naif, you aren't even origional. Noticing you hadn't made and differentiation, I pointed this out many posts ago. I think I've nailed down your business model...
1) Fill your posts with problematic logic and incoherent reasoning (glued together with vain accusations)
2) Grep responce that points out your errors for more accusations to throw
3) ???
4) Profit!
The evidence that Iraq had WMDs. It all came from the Iraqi National Congress
They did have a hand in it, and I agree we took them too much for their word. I hope everyone has learned a lesson from this.
Two counter points though, considering Kay's report I'm of the opinion that Saddam himself was being lied to as to whether or not he had stockpiles. Though the INC was lying, the corroborative chatter from Iraq was too for much different reasons, Saddam *wanted to have* chemical weapons.
I claimed he was duped, and he won't admit it.
Actually Bush, Powell and others have spoken for the White House in saying where they were and weren't mislead. Bush admits there are and probably weren't stockpiles of WMD's. Powell admits that some of his information was not accurate.
However, that doesn't lead to an appology for the war, and it shouldn't. For instance the press seems to think that anything but a soccer field full of warheads with cartoonish skull and bones on them is "no WMD's found". You can watch the headlines of press conferances where WMD's are found and disclosed, and yet when they say "no stockpiles of WMD's" the press slaps the headline "No WMD's found".
But there have been WMD's found. Near 20 chemical warheads, hundreds of empty chemical warheads, and a number of contraban rockets. The potential to make WMD's was closely protected by Saddam, and according to every single scientist they talked to, Saddam was ready to begin production the second sanctions were lifted (which France, Germany, and Russia had already been lobbying for since 1998). And Saddam, according to Blix, still was non-compliant in verifying the destruction and accountability demanded in 1441.
There is simply no reason to appologize for the Iraq war. Ding-dong the Saddam is behind bars. Liberty is in labor pains in Iraq, but soon to be born. And, a number of countries have stood up to take notice that they will be held accountable.