Half of Huffingtonpost could long ago have been dedicated to documenting the reasons for the need of the nation to relieve itself of George Bush and those members of Congress, dirty or incompetent or both, who enabled Bush to have his war and to then commit all those smaller and attendant-to-the-war acts which Bush himself, if impeachment charges were to be brought against him, would have no choice but to call crimes...unless he insisted upon portraying them as acts committed by an incompetent (and maybe upon incompetents).

That leads me to the latest of Jonathan Turley's always-learned opinions, this one on negligence and holding that accusations of negligence on Bush's part cannot be reason to impeach the guy because they amount or lend themselves, at best, to being used as cause only for one such as Turley to publicly lower himself (this time, on Keith Olbermann's show) in order to satisfy the demands of the Miss Manners Nazis among the audience who would have everyone in his position officially pooh-pooh something that an obviously half-whacky member of Congress--Dennis Kucinich--has managed to do, and so that he, Turley, can, in good conscience, get on to the good parts of what Kucinich has done...the "good parts," of course, being the half of Kucinich's effort which is sane (and likely the result of accident).

John Kerry (in whose hands, right after those of our soldiers and their command-in-chief, Turley's security lies) had an even-longer-than-Turley's chance to opine, last night, on Olbermann's show; he, too, didn't see reason to discuss impeaching Bush for negligence (though, unlike Turley, he also didn't see reason to impeach him for anything). This, if you want to know what I think, was because Kerry saw a more urgent threat to the nation, this threat, Kerry's choice, being posed by the Republican candidate for the presidency. That's CANDIDATE, as in FUTURE, and then ONLY MIGHT-BE PRESIDENT, John McCain.

An aside, for those who might require more: Kerry used his on-air time to inform the audience of just how urgent it is for them all (one or two of whom might be, if I have to remind you, a member of the U.S. military, and maybe even one stationed in Iraq) to understand what it means when a John McCain says we might be in Iraq the way we are in South Korea, and if the John McCain says this type of thing without first repeating vows with/swearing allegiance to the troops when he, this would-be commander-in-chief, John McCain, is to make/state/define/justify his plans, on TV (or at least live, still), which plans are of/for/about the military as much as they are whatever way they are for anyone else.

Hey, Onetokeunder,

Sytax, my friend, syntax!

I know a thing or two about being onetokeover and your run-on sentences and overly parenthetical eliptix have me now truly wishing I could get a bowl load of whatever you are experiencing!

Try recasting a few of those sentences into readabilities.

I know there are some good points in there somewhere, but try not making all of them at once.

Yes, my syntax s---s, as well sometimes but if what I think you were trying to say could be said more directly, we could have a chance to discuss it. As it stands, I find it hard to follow.