Well, Doug, I agree that Congress will give the Shrub what he wants, because the Repubs have been winning the PR war that if you disagree with the President, you're unpatriotic -- and it makes elections risky if your opponent can accuse of being "unpatriotic" for the crime of thinking for yourself.

However, I disagree that the Shrub needs the resolution to negotiate with the UN. The resolution has nothing to do with *negotiation.* It amounts to "If you don't give me what I want, I now have the power to attack any of you if I arbitrarily decide you're a threat." That's not negotiation, it's bullying and it's blackmail.

If you can't make a case without threats, there's no case to be made. Period.

Back to on topic discussion -- the "terrorist" label gets thrown around a lot lately. Semantically, it's null, because it's a political term that refers to whomever you disagree with if they choose to fight and kill some of your people. At least terrorists have motives.

This is not a terrorist in DC, it's a cold-blooded murderer who doesn't even have the shallow kind of justification of a political cause. Using pop-culture terms like "terrorist" and "collateral damage" and "suicide bombers" when you refer to killing minimizes the very real fact that people are DEAD, their families shattered, their children orphaned and spouses widowed and parents grieving.

Let's say it together, folks, "Murderer." Not terror-ist, murder-ist.