“'1) President Bush is constantly tying 9/11 and Saddam Hussein together in his speeches WITHOUT EVER MAKING THE CRUCIAL DISTINCTION THAT IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.” (my emphasis)’"
Technically you’ve got me there but the distinction is virtually meaningless and is dwarfed by the bigger picture. What I should have said is that Bush kept tying 9/11 and Iraq together WITHOUT EVER MENTIONING THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT SADDAM HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT AND, THEREFORE, HE ALMOST CERTAINLY DID NOT. As a result of President Bush’s misdirection 44% of all Americans are now wrongly of the opnion that Iraq was definitely involved or behind the attacks.
Now that you’re done hair-splitting we’re still stuck with a pious double-talking sleazeball of a president and what appears to be a deliberately misinformed public. But you won that round, xtisme. Enjoy your victory.
And thank you Master for your visitation. My nose is brown and happy.
Where on earth did all these conservatives come from, fer cryin’ out loud?
If those who oppose the invasion are liberal, then it follows that the pros are conservative. Every time, it seem’s, a republican disagrees with someone, that person (or idea) becomes liberal. It’s easy, isn’t it, to cheer for the “winning” team.
Re-read Cecil’s reply. What more conservative reasons for opposition could one espouse?
It is, and shall remain, a damn fool war. Regardless of the outcome. Regardless of the consequences. And regardless of a bunch of weepy-eyed, armchair, follow-the-crowd republicans. As seen on Fox News.
Peace,
mangeorge
It is very telling that people like Thromp do not address the points that Cecil raised; they only whine that he’s a liberal.
Address the issues, and I might find you have an opinion I can respect, if not agree with. Piss and moan about how dismayed you are that Cecil happens to have different political views than you, as if you discovered he’s a vampire or Satan worshipper, and you deserve nothing but disdain.
You know, if any person other than the Managing Editor of the Chicago Reader has a right to express his own opinions on this board, it would have to be Unka Cece. Disagree with him? That’s your right. Wanna stop him from saying what he thinks? You’re not only on the wrong board; you’re in the wrong country. This is America, where freedom of speech is guaranteed in the Constitution that our President, Congress, and judges are sworn to uphold.
I’m not out to argue with you, Haj, but one similarity that comes readily to mind is the fact that it’s a war prosecuted for reasons which seem good to them by the leaders of the country to which a large proportion of the country’s citizenry is opposed. There are obvious differences – notably the length of time and the ability to reach the goals we’ve set. But I trust you’ll grant that basic similarity – and the consequences in terms of bitter animosity between hawks and doves – which will probably continue in much the way that it did in the Vietnam Era. “The people that will not learn from history…”
I was very young at the time but my understanding is that the proportion of people against the Viet Nam War grew over time. The opposite has been true (so far?) with Gulf War II.
Thank you Cecil for sharing your reasoning with us.
The quote above is pretty much what the rest of the world fears about the US right now.
Our (as in the rest of the world) hope and fear comes from the fact that this is the country that gave us “Spiderman” and “Star Trek:The Next Generation”.
“With great power comes great responsibility.” It would be unfortunate if the hawks interpret “responsibility” to mean undertaking regime change as and where it deems fit, ignoring the long term considerations for short term heroics.
Thank you Cecil for sharing your reasoning with us.
The quote above is pretty much what the rest of the world fears about the US right now.
Our (as in the rest of the world) hope and fear comes from the fact that this is the country that gave us “Spiderman” and “Star Trek:The Next Generation”.
“With great power comes great responsibility.” It would be unfortunate if the hawks interpret “responsibility” to mean undertaking regime change as and where it deems fit, ignoring the long term considerations for short term heroics.
Please! A one-shot plot gimmick for a TV show that metastasized says more about cheapjack American artistic standards than it does about American ideals.
The reason most of us are here is because the beacon of Cecil’s knowledge and intelligence has attracted us. Now some of you question his masterful interpretation of information that leads him to believe this is a damn fool war? If you were all as learned as the Perfect Master you would understand, but until then just take it a little bit at a time so as to not strain yourselves…
This reminds of when it came out that Carl Sagan smoked pot. Some people really freaked that a person they looked up to partook of the evil weed.
If someone I looked up to came out with a opinion I strongly disagreed with, I’d at least listen to their arguments as to why they feel that way. And even if I still strongly disagreed, so what? I can still enjoy Sagan’s writings, and Cecil’s columns, even though we might not share 100 percent the same views. It would be a remarkable and extremely unlikely coincidence if we did.
I sure as fuck wouldn’t wouldn’t whine about it. “Waaaah! Cecil has the opposite view on a single issue! Waaaah! He’s a liberal/conservative hack! Waaaah! I’ll never read his column again!”
Haj. You are correct about public opinion changing about Viet Nam over a long period of time. But you have to remember that it was years This “war” has been so swift(and militarily successful), that public opinion had no time to change or evolve.
Things that could change public opinion over time are pretty obvious–a long, protracted occupation, an incursion into another country(Syria, or others), the people of Iraq choosing a government with leaders that we don’t approve of. Name your poison.
I’ve noticed there’s something about the Iraq war issue where many people who are for it simply cannot abide opposing views. It’s like holy water to a vampire; they simply cannot tolerate others with different opinions.
There you go, that’s exactly my point, that there was no point and no issue that Cecil raised. Those three words (damn fool war) were an attack on our president with nothing to back them up. If Cecil wishes to throw away half his audience and abandon purely factual subject matter in favor for advancing a liberal agenda it is his right do so but many of us would be saddened to see that happen. The previous lack of political bias is why so many of us enjoy this site.
If Cecil would have said “History will most likely judge Bush kindly for freeing the people of Iraq and safeguarding the world from a dangerous lunatic. The things he did as a young smart aleck will be all but forgotten except by the damn fools who still can’t understand why we needed this war.” it would have been equally inappropriate for the straight dope. This Cecil BBQ would have still been going on; it would just be the people on the other side of the coin holding the flamethrowers.
There have been a few people who have said they are going to take their readership/money elsewhere and they are certainly entitle to do so. I’m more forgiving and this single offence hasn’t pissed me off to the point I’m leaving, but it irked me enough to speak up. This is simply a plea to keep the straight dope free of liberal OR conservative commentary.
