Amen, Revtim.
Those who are not wholly pro-war, and pro-Bush are often branded traitors.
It’s sad, really. 
Peace,
mangeorge
Originall posted by Achernar
I hold my position. Cecil has no idea how history will judge Bush. It’s only an educated guess as long as he believes his opinion to be fact, which it’s not, even if his opinions are educated. The Administration is a little more than two years old, and so far I think it’s been alright. I would like to think that history will judge Pres. Bush well, but I have no idea what the future will bring and neither does Cecil.
I will back off a few things I said in my first post:
Originally posted by me
A few people here have pointed out that Cecil always spices up his columns with opinion and humor. I have always liked that. I just got a little hot headed. I would really miss his humor and opinions if he left them out.
The reason I directed that comment at you Thromp was because your other post came after Cecil did indeed post and back up his view, in this very thread. You could have addressed the points he raised, but you only whined about his “liberal agenda”.
As if it wasn’t silly enough to accuse someone of a “liberal agenda” based on single solitary comment, you then said Cecil didn’t back up his claims, when he in fact did on the same page you made that accusation.
Disagreeing with the reasoning behind the war is NOT an “attack” on our President.
That’s nice and all that he posted why he is against this war on the forums, but most readers aren’t going to see that, so in the eyes of the public it will remains a baseless slam. The article had absolutely nothing to do with Operation Iraqi Freedom. If Cecil felt the need to speak out against it, the original comment would have been better made on the forums.
Damn fool name for a damn fool war.
Peace,
mangeorge
The people of Iraq were slaves to a ruthless dictator. Now they are free. I fail to see why the name confuses you.
Peace, much like freedom, isn’t free,
Thromp
The name doesn’t “confuse” me at all, it makes me chuckle condescendingly. But then so did all the foofaraw over the tilting of The Statue. 
The source of such an inane title is what confuses me. It’s so “Apple Pie”. Problem is, it’s the cheap, frozen, store brand apple pie. With the soggy crust. I prefer real apple pie. The kind you get in real phrases. Like “Damn Fool War” for example. And if it stirs up a little self-righteous huffing and puffing? Well, that’s just à la mode. Vanilla, thank you.
Some of you might want to check out the following link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7310-2003Apr21.html
It shows that the administration’s evidence of WMDs is severely falling apart. Of course, since it’s from the Washington Post which ran pro-war op-eds over antiwar op-eds by a mere two-to-one margin I guess we’ll just have to dismiss this story as being the work of liberals and, therefore, automatically invalid. Congratulate me. I now qualify as a neoconservative intellectual for my masterful analysis of the true problem.
The name “Operation Iraqi Freedom” shows admirable forethought. Obviously they knew there was decent chance of not finding WMDs, so they’re not going to be embarrassed by repetative mentions of 'Operation Eliminate WMD Threat" with no vats of anthrax lying around.
They knew in advance they might have had to change gears to “We’re doing it for the poor oppressed Iraqi people”.
If the Iraqi people are grateful they have a strange way of showing it. They are now engaged in Operation Get The F*** Out of Our Yard.
That doesn’t roll off the tongue quite as nicely. Perhaps you could incorporate it into a country song?
My compliments to Banger.
Hey, I’m from Astoria too!
It seems that people have pulled away from the OP, which was actually Cecil’s column, so I’m pulling out of here, unless something intrigues me.
Me too. It has been fun.
Peace,
mangeorge
they named it Operation Iraqi Liberation, first, but changed it quickly after realizing that that would spell “OIL”
(Jay Leno, the Tonight show)
kinda sums it up.
Mangeorge: "But then so did all the foofaraw over the tilting of The Statue. "
Was the tilting in bad taste? Why was the American flag over Saddam’s face? That action is symbolic of imperialism, marking a claim on a land. Couldn’t the military have schemed something else to have the media present? I’d imagine that very few troops carry a large flag around (seems clunky), so this must have been planned.
If, instead, the Iraqi flag was taken down as Saddam’s statue was blinded and toppled and then the Iraqi flag was risen anew, the symbolism of that event would have been awesome!
The US seems to think of itself too often and too highly. It’s easier to see the splinter in another’s eye than to remove the beam from your own.
Methinks I’m getting too old (58) for symbolism. I’ve seen all to often how people are manipulated by symbols, and have to pay the piper in the end. Often they don’t even get to dance.
Scuze me. I think threr’s something in your eye. Here, I’ll get it. 
As I understand it, the Iraqi people started trying to pull the statue over, and the soldiers only helped out when it got stuck and wouldn’t come down any more. Don’t recall seeing the flag, but I didn’t actually pay close attention to the video. As for the flag, there was an incident early in the war when troops took over a town, and someone raised the American flag to show they were in control. The officers quickly pointed out that was bad symbology as we were not there to claim territory, and the flag was pulled down. I don’t think it unlikely the troops would be carrying a flag. I don’t think that was a staged event for the cameras, but a bunch of soldiers on the spot wanting to help.