I updated the status report with the four discrepancies Lennie forwarded to us via email, they can be found in the Barry file.
If I understand the situation correctly, we provided Murray with incorrect information. He had set the controls on JBL to 'C' when they should have been set to 'B'. I've verified they're now set to 'B', and want to confirm that this is correct before informing Murray of the change.
I'm not really sure I have the logic of the situation right, but I think that wording is much more clear.
Do we really need another corn-based product? Nearly everything you eat has corn in it. Drinks have high-fructose corn syrup. Bread has corn as well. Beef is raised on a diet of corn (and they have to use antibiotics so that the cows can digest it).
This is all because of ludicrous subsidies the government gives corn farmers. It results in corn products so cheap that they're essentially free.
Biodegradeable products are great. Don't get me wrong, but I suspect the only reason they're using corn here is that it's "free".
Hey Republican Majority! You know how you always talk about fiscal responsibility, reducing taxes, and reducing the size of the government? Now's the time to wipe out the corn subsidy once and for all. Maybe there's one thing you'll do in the next 2 or 4 years that won't completely piss me off.
Wow, really? Is it in the constitution, or is it a matter of a few scattered laws, or is it just traditional?
I have family in Mexico and I've visited a number of times, and although I've found that Mexicans are some of the kindest, most accepting people I've met, I still felt uncomfortable not being Catholic. Are there examples of Mexico's secularism you can point to?
al Qaeda attacked. Not Afghanistan, and certainly not Iraq. But if it had been possible to stop them before 9/11, sure, that would have been great. On the other hand, Iraq was never a threat to the United States. Let me repeat that -- Iraq was never a threat to the United States. Even when they were lying about the WMD, the Bush regime never claimed they were a Clear and Present Danger. They said they were working on WMD and might pose a threat later. That turned out to be a lie.
The fact that Bush was elected isn't an endorsement that what he did in Iraq was right, it's a testament to the fear he managed to instill in people, and the misinformation his campaign managed to spread. A philosopher you must admire once said:
Why of course the people don't want war... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple
matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.
I don't know what the fundie phrase "culture of death and murder" means, but I guess it's code for the birth control procedure called abortion. If you don't like the idea of killing something which can think and feel pain, I assume you're a vegan, right?
Anyhow, nobody said anything about killing children. We're talking about abortion -- you know, the killing of zygotes? Zygotes aren't children or are you actually arguing that a zygote is a child? Most of the country doesn't think that the government should have a say in what form of birth control they choose to use. Most of the country also thinks that adding discrimination into the US constitution is abhorrent. If fundies don't like some forms of birth control, they don't have to use them. If they don't like gay marriages, they don't have to marry gay people. The rest of us don't think the government should impose religious views on those who don't share them. You know, that whole "separation of church and state" thing?
Anybody who believes the media is biased to the left has had their brain fried on a much worse drug than crack -- the opiate of the masses.
As for the democratic party -- no, I have no doubt they're just as bad with the lobbyists as the republicans. The difference is that the democrats can't pass any law they want. The republicans control both houses and the executive branch, and now that Bush doesn't have to worry about any more elections, he would never veto something that was obviously just a corporate handout... oh wait, he never did veto anything anyhow!
I completely agree that Bush f*cked up the war plan, did nothing to get us allies, and basically created a terrorist haven, all while painting a huge target on the US.
My point was that the Marines aren't the ones to ask if they think the Marines are fighting for a just cause, and they're not the ones to ask if military force is the way to solve the problem.
When you are a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail.
I agree that in the end military force is an essential part of reducing terrorism in the world. I don't think it's the only part though. I also think that even though the Marines in Iraq think they're performing an essential function, I think that the invasion, the way it was handled, has actually made the world much more dangerous, and unless things are fixed soon, will end up making the US far less safe.
I don't know what you're trying to say, but if you're asking if I think that politicians are experts on foreign relations, and whether they know the nuances of the different branches of Islam, I'd say "Hell No!"
Politicians are simply people who are good at winning electoral campaigns. They have no special skills in legislating or running a country/state/city, let alone foreign relations or the nuances of Islam.
Half of us want to attack countries when they may be a threat to us at some point in the future. Half of us don't.
Half of us want "strong moral values" imposed on everybody, the other half thinks the government should keep its nose out of our personal lives.
Half of us see no problem with supporting the death penalty while opposing abortion, the other half doesn't believe zygotes are children, and believes all sentient human lives are valuable.
All of us think the media and Hollywood is biased. Some think it's biased towards the left. Some think it's biased towards the right. Some think it's biased towards profits.
In 4 years time, we'll see what wonders a Republican president who doesn't have to worry about re-election, a Republican senate and a Republican congress can do. Might as well start sending your taxes directly to their corporate sponsors.
That's one thing that you republicans have in common with Al Qaeda. You both want to live in the past and turn your back on social and scientific progress.
The idea of calling Kerry an idiot is ridiculous. He may not play the political game as well as Bush, but it's clear from the debates that he's much, much smarter than Bush.
Call Kerry wishy-washy. Call him unclear. Call him a flip-flopper. Call him boring. But when you support Bush, don't call Kerry an idiot. That's just silly.
I didn't realize that. Anyhow, what I meant was that the anthem had a different meaning in both languages, not that one was necessarily a translated version of the other. In this case, I guess it's surprising that the English wording is so different.
Sure, the officers are an exception, but there are far more non-commissioned members than officers, right? Besides, the order is generally "become a marine, get a graduate degree in foreign relations", not "get a graduate degree in foreign relations, join the marines".
How many Marines do you think there are that think that military force is the wrong way to solve problems?
The Marines absolutely have to believe they're doing the right thing. That absolute, unwavering belief is part of what keeps them alive.
The thing is, Marines are generally not political scientists. They're not experts on foreign relations, and they don't know the nuances of the different branches of Islam. They're the pointy end of the stick, and they're damn good at being that.
The problem is, the person weilding that pointy stick has to use that stick effectively. They're supposed to be the ones who *do* know about diplomacy, who *do* know about the history of the region, the culture, and everything else. Loyal marines should *not* be wasted on something that is not going to make the country or the world safer.
What many of the "liberals" think is that not only is it awful that US soldiers are being killed, the bad part is that it is making both the country and the world a less safe place. It's the job of the Marines to do what the Commander in Chief says to do, including dying. Its the job of the voters to choose a Commander in Chief who won't send them to die unless it's absolutely necessary.
If you disagree, and think that their deaths are necessary to help save the world, why not enlist. It's something that far more of the current democrat politicians have done than republicans. Maybe that should tell you something.
Well, he is saying that the popular vote is more important than the electoral college -- something I'm sure that democrats 4 years ago would have been happy to hear. Personally, I don't think it's just the electoral college that's broken. Any system that could result in George W. Bush being a head of state is fundamentally broken. I don't think there's much of a chance of it being fixed though.
All I know is that I have dual US-Canadian citizenship, and today I'm damn proud to be Canadian.
"I've said it before, and I'll say it again; Democracy simply doesn't work." -- Kent Brockman
What's interesting is that the French version of the anthem is by no means a direct translation of the English version. Let me see if I can translate it:
Oh Canada! Home of our ancestors
Your face/forehead is encircled with glorious florets
Your arm knows how to hold the sword
It knows how to hold the cross
Your history is a epic
Of the most brilliant feats
And your gallantry
Of tempered faith
Will protect our homes/hearths and our rights
Will protect our homes/hearths and our rights
I think the point the original poster is making is that Americans (not the country, the people from the country) are often really out-of-place in other countries. And that's just not true of people from virtually anywhere else (except maybe Japan).
It isn't abnormal to grow up in the US and never leave the country on vacation or on business trips. Throughout most of the rest of the "first world", that's really rare. In Europe, other countries are closer (and better connected) than are nearby states in the US.
The US is also a net exporter of media -- TV, movies, music, etc. Almost nothing is imported, so while Canadians get half their TV networks from the US, Americans don't even realize that Jim Carrey or Peter Jennings are Canadian.
So when a typical American finally does go somewhere outside the country, they stand out like a sore thumb. They have never been exposed to the world outside their own borders.
Not surprisingly, the locals all find that pretty funny.
Actually, the sound you hear in the middle syllable of "fallacy", as it is pronounced in the US, is a schwa. In a stress-timed language like english, non-stressed syllable sounds tend to be pronounced as a schwa.
If someone has something interesting to say, but there are a few meaningless spelling mistakes, it doesn't really bother me. When I have to translate from what they actually wrote into what I think they meant to write, and that becomes like a lot of effort, that's when it bothers me.
English spelling is very difficult. I don't think there's any language with more difficult spelling. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't try. If you want to communicate effectively, and not have people constantly working to understand you, you should make an effort to spell things properly.
Criticizing someone's spelling on a blog like this is like criticizing someone's manners in person. It may not have a direct influence on their argument, but it sure does have an influence on whether or not you want to listen to what they have to say.
The bullying part is how the US administration treats its allies, not its enemies. Look at how the US insulted the european countries that opposed them. Look at how they rebuked Canada. Look at how they refused to even allow a UN security council vote on the invasion.
If Saddam Hussein had actually had WMD, and the inspectors had been able to find them, I bet nearly the entire world would have supported invading Iraq. But when it looked like the most of the world wasn't ready to launch the invasion based on "trust us" and wanted to give the weapons inspectors more time, the warmongers in the Bush administration elbowed people out of the way to launch the invasion.
Excellent -- that's an admission you rarely hear from the pro-life camp. Foetuses are not full people and abortion is stopping potential life/sentience, not actual life/sentience.
In my view, if you don't care about the sentience aspect, then it's simply killing a living thing that matters to you. If you're a pure vegan, then this worldview is consistent. On the other hand, if you don't view every life as sacred, sentient or not, then you're inconsistent. That's because a one-day old baby has far more in common with a fish than it does with a one-day old human zygote The only distinction is that the one-day old human zygote has the potential to eventually become the baby.
It's much easier to choose conception as a point where life begins than the point where an unborn potential-baby becomes sentient, but just because it's intellectually easy doesn't make it right. If there were no cost to choosing one way or the other, it wouldn't matter if you chose the intellectually easy answer or the more useful answer.
The problem is, raising a child is an extremely difficult and life-changing process. A child raised by a parent who wasn't equipped to take on this difficult job may have a difficult childhood and even a difficult life. Abortion is almost never going to be easy for a woman. To me it just makes sense that rather than force someone to take on this difficult job before they're ready, you let them use an option where nobody is hurt.
Perfect example. Remember how Berlin had a French sector, a British sector, an American sector and a Russian sector? That's because there was a true multinational force that went in to stop Hitler, and they kept the forces around necessary to keep things stable.
Anyhow, it seems to me that the biggest problem with Germany after WW2 was the tensions between Russia and the West.
Now, imagine how WW2 would have worked out if the US had attacked Germany alone, and had done so with just barely enough soldiers to win, and then had done virtually nothing to keep the country stable. If they'd screwed up that badly you might have something similar to what's now happening in Iraq.
This is kinda like that "Bush banned stem-cell research" myth, when in fact he just stopped anti-abortionists from being forced to fund abortions (via taxpayer money).
Whoa cowboy. Your lie is just as huge as the one you're complaining about. That's not what happened. Bush banned federal funding for new embryonic stem cell lines. It's not like without that ban, the government was going to go out, soliciting women to have abortions so that they could get the stem cells. The only difference would have been that rather than letting the aborted foetuses go to waste, they could have been used to help save someone's life. His ban had *nothing* to do with the funding of abortions.
It seems to me trying to stabilize the region is a good idea.
You call Iraq stabilized???
Here, why don't you drink this can of beer I "stabilized" for you, by shaking it for a few minutes.
Look, nobody thinks Saddam Hussein is a great guy. In theory, having him out of power is a good thing. This method for removing him from power is just about the most outrageous, arrogant, ridiculously blind way of doing it ever conceived.
You can't judge Bush by saying "gee, his heart is in the right place", you have to look at the choices he made.
Even if you ignored all the domestic blunders and focus *solely* on Iraq, you can't see anything but a massive failure. If you want to build an environment where people don't want to be terrorists, you don't go off killing their relatives. How simple is that? You don't call it a crusade, you don't make it a unilateral invasion where 90% of the troops are American.
Maybe the only way to remove Saddam Hussein from power was by using military force, but if that was the case, there was no reason to do it in the ridiculously stupid way that Bush chose.
Besides, shouldn't the "war on terror[ists]" have been a higher priority than this attack in Iraq? And no they aren't the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Still not good enough for me. I'd write it as:
I'm not really sure I have the logic of the situation right, but I think that wording is much more clear.
Do we really need another corn-based product? Nearly everything you eat has corn in it. Drinks have high-fructose corn syrup. Bread has corn as well. Beef is raised on a diet of corn (and they have to use antibiotics so that the cows can digest it).
This is all because of ludicrous subsidies the government gives corn farmers. It results in corn products so cheap that they're essentially free.
Biodegradeable products are great. Don't get me wrong, but I suspect the only reason they're using corn here is that it's "free".
Hey Republican Majority! You know how you always talk about fiscal responsibility, reducing taxes, and reducing the size of the government? Now's the time to wipe out the corn subsidy once and for all. Maybe there's one thing you'll do in the next 2 or 4 years that won't completely piss me off.
Wow, really? Is it in the constitution, or is it a matter of a few scattered laws, or is it just traditional?
I have family in Mexico and I've visited a number of times, and although I've found that Mexicans are some of the kindest, most accepting people I've met, I still felt uncomfortable not being Catholic. Are there examples of Mexico's secularism you can point to?
al Qaeda attacked. Not Afghanistan, and certainly not Iraq. But if it had been possible to stop them before 9/11, sure, that would have been great. On the other hand, Iraq was never a threat to the United States. Let me repeat that -- Iraq was never a threat to the United States. Even when they were lying about the WMD, the Bush regime never claimed they were a Clear and Present Danger. They said they were working on WMD and might pose a threat later. That turned out to be a lie.
The fact that Bush was elected isn't an endorsement that what he did in Iraq was right, it's a testament to the fear he managed to instill in people, and the misinformation his campaign managed to spread. A philosopher you must admire once said:
I don't know what the fundie phrase "culture of death and murder" means, but I guess it's code for the birth control procedure called abortion. If you don't like the idea of killing something which can think and feel pain, I assume you're a vegan, right?
Anyhow, nobody said anything about killing children. We're talking about abortion -- you know, the killing of zygotes? Zygotes aren't children or are you actually arguing that a zygote is a child? Most of the country doesn't think that the government should have a say in what form of birth control they choose to use. Most of the country also thinks that adding discrimination into the US constitution is abhorrent. If fundies don't like some forms of birth control, they don't have to use them. If they don't like gay marriages, they don't have to marry gay people. The rest of us don't think the government should impose religious views on those who don't share them. You know, that whole "separation of church and state" thing?
Anybody who believes the media is biased to the left has had their brain fried on a much worse drug than crack -- the opiate of the masses.
As for the democratic party -- no, I have no doubt they're just as bad with the lobbyists as the republicans. The difference is that the democrats can't pass any law they want. The republicans control both houses and the executive branch, and now that Bush doesn't have to worry about any more elections, he would never veto something that was obviously just a corporate handout... oh wait, he never did veto anything anyhow!
Are you sure you meant to reply to me?
I completely agree that Bush f*cked up the war plan, did nothing to get us allies, and basically created a terrorist haven, all while painting a huge target on the US.
My point was that the Marines aren't the ones to ask if they think the Marines are fighting for a just cause, and they're not the ones to ask if military force is the way to solve the problem.
When you are a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail.
I agree that in the end military force is an essential part of reducing terrorism in the world. I don't think it's the only part though. I also think that even though the Marines in Iraq think they're performing an essential function, I think that the invasion, the way it was handled, has actually made the world much more dangerous, and unless things are fixed soon, will end up making the US far less safe.
I don't know what you're trying to say, but if you're asking if I think that politicians are experts on foreign relations, and whether they know the nuances of the different branches of Islam, I'd say "Hell No!"
Politicians are simply people who are good at winning electoral campaigns. They have no special skills in legislating or running a country/state/city, let alone foreign relations or the nuances of Islam.
It's more like half.
Half of us want to attack countries when they may be a threat to us at some point in the future. Half of us don't.
Half of us want "strong moral values" imposed on everybody, the other half thinks the government should keep its nose out of our personal lives.
Half of us see no problem with supporting the death penalty while opposing abortion, the other half doesn't believe zygotes are children, and believes all sentient human lives are valuable.
All of us think the media and Hollywood is biased. Some think it's biased towards the left. Some think it's biased towards the right. Some think it's biased towards profits.
In 4 years time, we'll see what wonders a Republican president who doesn't have to worry about re-election, a Republican senate and a Republican congress can do. Might as well start sending your taxes directly to their corporate sponsors.
That's one thing that you republicans have in common with Al Qaeda. You both want to live in the past and turn your back on social and scientific progress.
The idea of calling Kerry an idiot is ridiculous. He may not play the political game as well as Bush, but it's clear from the debates that he's much, much smarter than Bush.
Call Kerry wishy-washy. Call him unclear. Call him a flip-flopper. Call him boring. But when you support Bush, don't call Kerry an idiot. That's just silly.
I didn't realize that. Anyhow, what I meant was that the anthem had a different meaning in both languages, not that one was necessarily a translated version of the other. In this case, I guess it's surprising that the English wording is so different.
Sure, the officers are an exception, but there are far more non-commissioned members than officers, right? Besides, the order is generally "become a marine, get a graduate degree in foreign relations", not "get a graduate degree in foreign relations, join the marines".
Funny enough, the only state that I know of to be officially secular is France.
Yeah. Let us know when you've licked that whole "darkness" thing once and for all. Smoochies, the other 50%.
Cuz Arnie wasn't born in the US, but I'm sure they're willing to do it.
Btw, you might want to tell your friend that the Gipper *was* a primate, as are all of us. Much as Bush's supporters don't want to admit it.
How many Marines do you think there are that think that military force is the wrong way to solve problems?
The Marines absolutely have to believe they're doing the right thing. That absolute, unwavering belief is part of what keeps them alive.
The thing is, Marines are generally not political scientists. They're not experts on foreign relations, and they don't know the nuances of the different branches of Islam. They're the pointy end of the stick, and they're damn good at being that.
The problem is, the person weilding that pointy stick has to use that stick effectively. They're supposed to be the ones who *do* know about diplomacy, who *do* know about the history of the region, the culture, and everything else. Loyal marines should *not* be wasted on something that is not going to make the country or the world safer.
What many of the "liberals" think is that not only is it awful that US soldiers are being killed, the bad part is that it is making both the country and the world a less safe place. It's the job of the Marines to do what the Commander in Chief says to do, including dying. Its the job of the voters to choose a Commander in Chief who won't send them to die unless it's absolutely necessary.
If you disagree, and think that their deaths are necessary to help save the world, why not enlist. It's something that far more of the current democrat politicians have done than republicans. Maybe that should tell you something.
Well, he is saying that the popular vote is more important than the electoral college -- something I'm sure that democrats 4 years ago would have been happy to hear. Personally, I don't think it's just the electoral college that's broken. Any system that could result in George W. Bush being a head of state is fundamentally broken. I don't think there's much of a chance of it being fixed though.
All I know is that I have dual US-Canadian citizenship, and today I'm damn proud to be Canadian.
"I've said it before, and I'll say it again; Democracy simply doesn't work." -- Kent Brockman
What's interesting is that the French version of the anthem is by no means a direct translation of the English version. Let me see if I can translate it:
Oh Canada! Home of our ancestors
Your face/forehead is encircled with glorious florets
Your arm knows how to hold the sword
It knows how to hold the cross
Your history is a epic
Of the most brilliant feats
And your gallantry
Of tempered faith
Will protect our homes/hearths and our rights
Will protect our homes/hearths and our rights
I think the point the original poster is making is that Americans (not the country, the people from the country) are often really out-of-place in other countries. And that's just not true of people from virtually anywhere else (except maybe Japan).
It isn't abnormal to grow up in the US and never leave the country on vacation or on business trips. Throughout most of the rest of the "first world", that's really rare. In Europe, other countries are closer (and better connected) than are nearby states in the US.
The US is also a net exporter of media -- TV, movies, music, etc. Almost nothing is imported, so while Canadians get half their TV networks from the US, Americans don't even realize that Jim Carrey or Peter Jennings are Canadian.
So when a typical American finally does go somewhere outside the country, they stand out like a sore thumb. They have never been exposed to the world outside their own borders.
Not surprisingly, the locals all find that pretty funny.
Actually, the sound you hear in the middle syllable of "fallacy", as it is pronounced in the US, is a schwa. In a stress-timed language like english, non-stressed syllable sounds tend to be pronounced as a schwa.
If someone has something interesting to say, but there are a few meaningless spelling mistakes, it doesn't really bother me. When I have to translate from what they actually wrote into what I think they meant to write, and that becomes like a lot of effort, that's when it bothers me.
English spelling is very difficult. I don't think there's any language with more difficult spelling. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't try. If you want to communicate effectively, and not have people constantly working to understand you, you should make an effort to spell things properly.
Criticizing someone's spelling on a blog like this is like criticizing someone's manners in person. It may not have a direct influence on their argument, but it sure does have an influence on whether or not you want to listen to what they have to say.
The Neil Bush link didn't work, but this one should. He sounds even worse than George.
The bullying part is how the US administration treats its allies, not its enemies. Look at how the US insulted the european countries that opposed them. Look at how they rebuked Canada. Look at how they refused to even allow a UN security council vote on the invasion.
If Saddam Hussein had actually had WMD, and the inspectors had been able to find them, I bet nearly the entire world would have supported invading Iraq. But when it looked like the most of the world wasn't ready to launch the invasion based on "trust us" and wanted to give the weapons inspectors more time, the warmongers in the Bush administration elbowed people out of the way to launch the invasion.
Am I the one who can't wait for the George W. Bush presidential library? What a laugh that place is going to be.
Excellent -- that's an admission you rarely hear from the pro-life camp. Foetuses are not full people and abortion is stopping potential life/sentience, not actual life/sentience.
In my view, if you don't care about the sentience aspect, then it's simply killing a living thing that matters to you. If you're a pure vegan, then this worldview is consistent. On the other hand, if you don't view every life as sacred, sentient or not, then you're inconsistent. That's because a one-day old baby has far more in common with a fish than it does with a one-day old human zygote The only distinction is that the one-day old human zygote has the potential to eventually become the baby.
It's much easier to choose conception as a point where life begins than the point where an unborn potential-baby becomes sentient, but just because it's intellectually easy doesn't make it right. If there were no cost to choosing one way or the other, it wouldn't matter if you chose the intellectually easy answer or the more useful answer.
The problem is, raising a child is an extremely difficult and life-changing process. A child raised by a parent who wasn't equipped to take on this difficult job may have a difficult childhood and even a difficult life. Abortion is almost never going to be easy for a woman. To me it just makes sense that rather than force someone to take on this difficult job before they're ready, you let them use an option where nobody is hurt.
Perfect example. Remember how Berlin had a French sector, a British sector, an American sector and a Russian sector? That's because there was a true multinational force that went in to stop Hitler, and they kept the forces around necessary to keep things stable.
Anyhow, it seems to me that the biggest problem with Germany after WW2 was the tensions between Russia and the West.
Now, imagine how WW2 would have worked out if the US had attacked Germany alone, and had done so with just barely enough soldiers to win, and then had done virtually nothing to keep the country stable. If they'd screwed up that badly you might have something similar to what's now happening in Iraq.
Whoa cowboy. Your lie is just as huge as the one you're complaining about. That's not what happened. Bush banned federal funding for new embryonic stem cell lines. It's not like without that ban, the government was going to go out, soliciting women to have abortions so that they could get the stem cells. The only difference would have been that rather than letting the aborted foetuses go to waste, they could have been used to help save someone's life. His ban had *nothing* to do with the funding of abortions.
You call Iraq stabilized???
Here, why don't you drink this can of beer I "stabilized" for you, by shaking it for a few minutes.
Look, nobody thinks Saddam Hussein is a great guy. In theory, having him out of power is a good thing. This method for removing him from power is just about the most outrageous, arrogant, ridiculously blind way of doing it ever conceived.
You can't judge Bush by saying "gee, his heart is in the right place", you have to look at the choices he made.
Even if you ignored all the domestic blunders and focus *solely* on Iraq, you can't see anything but a massive failure. If you want to build an environment where people don't want to be terrorists, you don't go off killing their relatives. How simple is that? You don't call it a crusade, you don't make it a unilateral invasion where 90% of the troops are American.
Maybe the only way to remove Saddam Hussein from power was by using military force, but if that was the case, there was no reason to do it in the ridiculously stupid way that Bush chose.
Besides, shouldn't the "war on terror[ists]" have been a higher priority than this attack in Iraq? And no they aren't the same thing.