[stockstrader]

"source of deep concern for me."

That's a completely meaningless, totally useless, demeaningly proper and politically correct response for someone who wants to take a milquestoast, pansy, totally capitulating, irresponsible and wishy-washy position. I'm sure that got the terrorists shanking in their boots...lol

It takes no spine, no backbone, no courage to make an insulting and completely worthless comment like that.

What isn't a source of deep concern??? Unbelievable.

[the invisib1e hand]

well, besides all that, there is whole semantical angle. I mean, I could understand if it were a "cause" of concern (deep or otherwise); or perhaps a "reason" to be concerned. But a "source of deep concern" is, as you say, meaningless. It belies a complete lack of sincerity and, ironically, depth. Why? Because it's clear that, like the last democrat president, words to him are tools to use in shaping people's perception, not in communicating useful information.

Yeah, he's as smooth as a snake.

They criticize W's speech, but every word he spoke meant something, and together they meant great things ("We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them" -- this simple-sounding sentence completely reframed -- in fact, made possible -- the "war on terror" and literally brought the battle to the enemy).

If there are any honest linguists anywhere, they must be getting all up in a tizzy about 0. And by the time he's gone, they'll be tizzied out.