Cecil’s words. I feel vindicated.
Wow, it’s not often that I disagree with Cecil, even over matters of politics.
That’s it. 
damn, that was gutsy.
I registered for this site just to comment on his words.
It is disgusting that a respected man who is apparently of high intelligence would make such comments at this point. Is it really that hard for the liberal elite to admit that they are wrong? How can you deny the cheering, celebrating, elation of the Iraqi people? How is it wrong to rid a people of an oppressive regime - a regime that has used chemical weapons on its own people?
It is estimated that Saddam Hussein spent $2.2 billion building palaces. How much food and medicine could that have bought the Iraqi people?
Perhaps France, Germany, Russia and China do not want us in Iraq. Have you ever stopped to think why? The question has a simple answer - money. I will not bog this thread down with the hard facts of the aforementioned nation’s investments in Iraq (both through private banking and trade deals via the UN Oil for Food Program).
Nobody likes war. We will take this for a fact. However peace and safety does not come through the absence of war. The sad truth is that the world we live in has peace through strength. Was it wrong to liberate Nazi Germany and Tojo’s Japan? If we had the foresight to rid Germany of Hitler in 1939, would that be wrong? Is it so terrible that through the strength of the US armed forces we were able to topple communism? Our country has a history of bringing freedom to oppressed peoples and this is just another example of that.
Your comment is something that would have been atypical in the weeks leading up to the war and perhaps even in the first week or two of the war. However, with the Iraqi regime falling, the Iraqi people celebrating, several possible sites with WMD found, I can not comprehend how you can still make such a comment. I would certainly appreciate a response and would love to keep this an open debate.
Shame on you Mr. Adams! Shame on you!
“Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return.” — Secretary of State Colin Powell, responding to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who asked at a London conference if U.S. plans for Iraq are an example of empire-building by President Bush.
I too was moved to register for this site based on the “damn fool war” comment in Cecil’s latest comment.
I’ve been a Cecil Adam’s fan for years–reading his columns in the newspaper, buying the books, and more recently, reading his web page almost every day. I had always trusted him to provided us with the straight dope, untainted by political bias. I suppose I’ll still read his column in the future. I just won’t trust it as much.
Have you ever stopped to think why George W. Bush began this war. In 2000 no one (except maybe Donald Rumsfeld) was thinking of going to war with Iraq. Saddam hasnt done anything since then except to let weapon inspectors into the country. Sure he’s a despot who brutalized his people but half the planet lives under brutal despots. It has never been the US forign policy to intervene in dictatorships purely for the sake of liberating brutalized citizens (exhibit A photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam). That the excuse thats been put forowrd by the administration the last couple weeks once it was clear that no serious WMD would turn up. If Saddam had any serious WMD he was decent enough not to employ them against the troops. Does that seem like somehting Saddam would do?
I to have never posted before but was heartened by Mr. Adams comment especially at this time when many are afraid to speak out. Most of the anti-war crowd expected the scene in the last few days and most including myself wanted it to happen as soon as possible once the war had started. The reprecussions however will not end here. The United States has acted in a reckless manner that will infuriate the region and lead to greater conflict.
When did Cecil write this column? Is he hiding in a bunker without CNN? There has been much speculation that in recent appearances, look-alike Staff members have been substituted for the man himself. Perhaps if he makes mention of recent events in new columns, I will acknowledge that Cecil is still alive (but possibly seriously injured).
Joking aside, I think we can all agree that Cecil does an admirable job of separating politics and factual matters. Even this column proves that, while he thinks history will judge Bush harshly (I disagree), he still provides an impartial (IMHO) account of what happened. Don’t confuse Cecil’s opinions with his facts.
Remember, the Viet Nam war seemed like a good idea to most Americans at one time, too.
I’m just curious, do you have some reason to believe that Cecil is liberal? I haven’t noticed anything that would indicate that, but I could easily have missed something.
Yay Cecil! I admire you for telling it like it is. I’m going to go buy one of your books in support.
No matter what you think about this war, you’ll see how ill-advised it was when we start reaping the whirlwind. It’s not over by a long shot, and anyone who thinks you can impose democracy from without should take a careful look at most of Africa and see how well it’s working there.
I was happy to see Cecil’s usual (mostly) balanced presentation of the facts in answer to an honest question. Then I reached the last paragraph of the article.
I’m very disappointed. “Fighting ignorance” is done best from an impartial standpoint - usually Cecil keeps personal opinion out of his column. I find this appropriate since opinions are subjective and have no place in a presentation of the facts. Cecil fell far short of his usual impartiality, and therefore fell far short of his usual quality in this column.
I’ve lost a measure of my respect for the Dope and for Cecil himself. I’m honestly sorry I clicked on the link that led me to that column this morning.
I’m curious too. I’ve always had the impression that Cecil was kinda conservative. (Just an impression mind you.)
It always seemed to me that cecil had more of a conservative/libertarian bent. I often disagreed with what he said but I would never have asked him to pretend to be impartial. Anyone with basic reading skills hould be able to tell where the facts (in this column they were fairly kind to Mr. Bush) end and where the opinion begins.
I have to admit, I never thought I’d see anyone would peg Unca’ Cecil as part of the “liberal elite”.
To be fair, the column was probably written and submitted to the syndicate 6 weeks ago. Long before we saw any Iraqis celebrating their liberation.
Say what? That’s not my impression at all. Especially with questions related to politics, he throws in his own opinion as well. But as others have said, the reason he’s so good at what he does is that he makes it clear what’s fact and what’s opinion.
I think Cecil’s innate intelligence may have led many people to believe that he may be a conservative. It’s inevitable that when you know history and look into the truth of any issue, you’re going to end up with a conservative viewpoint. However, this statement has, unfortunately, shown Cecil’s true colors. I’m a bit confused, though, Cece – don’t you read your own columns? How can anyone supposedly dedicated to truth and fighting ignorance be a liberal??? It’s baffling.
Hooray for Cecil.
Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.
We built Saddam up and sold him WMD materials, including Anthrax.
The evidence used to show that Saddam was buying fissionable materials was forged.
The only terrorism Saddam has financed outside of Iraq is Palestinian suicide bomibing and that directed at Iraqi dissidents.
Saddam and Osama bin Laden hate each other.
Saddam was every bit as awful to his people as he was when he was our ally. We could have attacked him any time in the last 20 years and would have been every bit as justified (although it would have looked funny when we were sending him money and weapons).
The Saudis, who financed, organized and largely excuted 9/11 are still officially our allies.
The Pakistanis who organized and financed the Taliban and who have nucleaer weapons are officially our allies.
The war does virtually nothing to make us safer from terrorism and distracts us from just about everything the Bush administration is up to including the abbrogation of our civil rights and the institution of catastrophic debt.
Shame on me for noticing this stuff. Shame on me for pointing it out. And shame on me for not being mindlessly swept up by the current euphoria. Clearly I am unfit to call myself an American unlike some of the previous posters whom it would seem, are more than qualified.
I don’t care whether he’s liberal or conservative, but I agree with Kilt-man that I wish Cecil would keep his personal opinion out of the part that is dealing with “fighting ignorance.”
This is a fascinating issue, since it deals with two other issues that are being raised repeatedly these days.
One: The relative impartiality and balance of news coverage, including the appropriate separation of fact and opinion, and the potential for slanting coverage. On one hand, letting us know he disapproves of the war helps us put any other statements, inclusions or omissions into context. On the other hand, it may leave some of us with suspicion and doubt we didn’t previously have as to the reliability or impartiality of Mr. Adams.
Two: What are the consequences? Those who disagree could stop reading, posting, etc. and stop buying any books. Then somebody could complain about how we were attempting to restrict his right to freedom of speech. How it isn’t “fair.” Those who stopped reading and posting could then complain (somewhere else, of course) about how the SDMB had been taken over by a bunch of whacko pinko peacenik hippies.
Sigh. I guess the tempest over this article means I’ll never get a response to my question about Levi’s jeans … 
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by TheMemeWarrior *
Have you ever stopped to think why George W. Bush began this war. In 2000 no one (except maybe Donald Rumsfeld) was thinking of going to war with Iraq. Saddam hasnt done anything since then except to let weapon inspectors into the country. Sure he’s a despot who brutalized his people but half the planet lives under brutal despots. It has never been the US forign policy to intervene in dictatorships purely for the sake of liberating brutalized citizens (exhibit A photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam). That the excuse thats been put forowrd by the administration the last couple weeks once it was clear that no serious WMD would turn up. If Saddam had any serious WMD he was decent enough not to employ them against the troops. Does that seem like somehting Saddam would do?
Saddam hasn’t done anything? Please allow me to quote UN resolution 1441, to begin:
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,
Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,
Recognizing the threat Iraq’s noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,
Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,
Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,
Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council’s repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,
Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,
Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,
Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,
*
So flouting UN resolutions in the face of international law is “doing nothing”. Doing nothing to prove that he did not have weapons, doing nothing to follow what he agreed to, doing nothing to show the world that he is not an extremely dangerous man. How many times does the word “deplore” appear in the selection above?
I have yet to see any argument or back up in this thread of why we should not be at war.
Who are you to say that the actions of the United States will infuriate the region? Please give facts to support as such.