Yep, Don, you're right. Those folk down South just don't know how to talk, and that includes Texans. However, for once I agree with Bobert. To get hung up on elocution and word pronunciaton seems a bit picky to me. Bobert may accept Amos' explanation but it seems a bit shallow to me nontheless. If it was intended as humor, as Amos suggests, then it is humor at the expense of others. Something I would think most of you folks would resent.

As to whether or not the situation with Iraq has been resolved by that country's letter to the U. N. General Secretary, I doubt it. It might buy Saddam more time though. Perhaps even the amount of time he might be looking for. You will note that Saddam did not offer to abide by the other Resolutions called for in Bush's speech. One of them involves better treatment for his own people. I would think, as humanitarians, most of you would favor enforcement of that Resolution, right? Neither did it deal with the resolution that would require Saddam to use the money from the sale of oil to provide better conditions for his people rather than build palaces for himself, or to build up his arsenal. Is that not something you, as humanitarians, feel should be enforced? The letter addressed none of the resolutions other than inspections, and while one paragraph stated the inspections would be unconditional, later in the letter it is clear they want to negotiate.

Does that sound familiar? It should, that's what they have always done, agree to admit inspectors, but deprive them of the freedom required to inspect any site they wish to.

DougR