it's those darned procrastinators we need to get one board, get them, we have a majority.

So, the answer was no. Not all of them.

Ta.

were they meant to all sign a form agreeing to the statement "I condemn ISIS"? When was this carried out, I didn't hear anything about it?

Were they all supposed to?

It's easy to bash the American press and almost all the criticism is deserved. And yet I have more respect for, say, the Washington Post <fx: hack ... spit!> than the amusingly titled "Left Wing" British media who actually treat IS as though it is some kind of existential Moral Challenge foisted upon "Our Great Nation & The World" by Islam reeling under the assault of Western Freedom & Democracy.

I can't tell you the glut of self-righteous poppycock which has spewed out of The Guardian and The Independent since the terrifying spectre of IS first emerged. Anyone might think they could call upon six carrier battle groups, seventeen long-range bomber wings, thirty divisions of scimitar wielding desert warriors, all of which commanded from secret CNC installations in hollowed out mountains (presumably dug by Osama's Bond-Villain-Lairs-R-Us construction company) and supported by a plethora of super-secret stealth satellites, uber hackers and nuclear shielded comms.

But I guess it's always easier to find the truth in the pages of an imperial press. After all, the British Empire had its fair share of politicians and journalists who actually believed imperial expansion was nothing to be ashamed of. It's much harder to find substantial support among people living in a client state - not least because you invariably end up doing all of the work for none of the rewards.

Which makes the necessity to dream up noble rhetorical causes all the more pressing. And, boy, our papers turn such into an art form.