Just like the anti-constitution types do when Cecil’s Second Amendment columns are brought up?
I am more than a little dismayed at you Cecil. Shame on you for mixing truth with opinion. Start your own damn thread if you want to comment on the “damn fool war” as you say.
By definition fighting ignorance must not include emotional opinion.
People here can debate the war, who started it, what it’s impact on world will be and so on. That’s not the point. The point is what Cecil said and whether or not he should have said it.
What Cecil said really ticked me off: “History will judge Bush harshly” and “This damned-fool war”. First, Cecil doesn’t know how history will judge Pres. Bush or the war. That’s for the future to decide. Second, this really had nothing to do with the question. The question was about whether Bush had really gone AWOL during his time in the National Guard, not how Cecil felt about the President and the war. Yes the President was a pampered rich kid who took advantage, but I think this comment was unneccesary in context with the question, or it could have at least been reworded. The entire last paragraph was mostly opinion.
I still trust Cecil to tell The Straight Dope, but his job is facts, not opinion. He has every right to say what he wants in his column, but out of professionalism he should stick to telling the facts.
Please reread the column. It is not stated as something that Cecil knows. Here’s the quote: “If history judges Bush harshly–and it probably will–it won’t be for screwing up as a young smart aleck”. There’s a definite difference in tone between what Cecil said and how you quoted him. He clearly meant it as an educated guess, not as a fact. Nowhere does he give the impression that he knows how history will judge the President.
And Kamikazee, what definition did you have in mind when you said, “By definition fighting ignorance must not include emotional opinion.” I can find no definition which gives ignorance and opinion as related.
Oops. Looks like CNN is reporting that chemical weapons HAVE been found in Kirkuk (and do you honestly believe that GW, like him or not, would subject the nation to a ground war in Iraq unless he had some pretty damn compelling intelligence indicating Saddam had WMDs?).
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/12/sprj.irq.chemical/index.html
Also, let’s not forget that such liberals as Daschle, Kerry, Gephardt and Hillary all voted to SUPPORT military action against Iraq…this after a unanimous vote by the UN Security Council.
If Ted Kennedy and his ilk had their way, all those liberated Iraqis would STILL be suffering under Saddam’s murderous regime as pointless weapons inspections dragged on and on with no results. In fact, I’d love to see a celebrating Iraqi asked by one of the networks if he agrees with the liberals that the weapons inspectors were working and should’ve been able to continue witht their mission.
The USA got it right for once this time. Bill Clinton signed the “Iraqi Regime Change Act” but did nothing other than lob a few cruise missiles. George Bush accomplished the mission within three weeks.
Let’s give credit where due…
The right thing?
People, Cecil expressed his opinion about Gulf War 2.0 - there you have it, he doesn’t like it. Can all of you honestly claim you’ve never read a column of his that contains expressions of opinion, used in a humourous or sarcastic way, and beside the main thrust of the column?
Cecil answered the question without bias, and factually. In addition, he voiced his opinion on the war. He’s not slacking about fighting ignorance: he DID answer the question.
I, too, have read columns where Cecil interjected opinions I didn’t agree with. That doesn’t take away the fact that on the whole, he’s a font of wisdom, neutral and unbiased when it comes to the bare facts.
I’m also still giggling about the person who said that if you look at history objectively, you’re bound to prefer a conservative view on today’s world. Yeah. 'Cause as we all know, all the societal changes that have been accomplished since e.g. slaves were shipped to the New World have been initiated by Conservatives. Uh-huh.
Dear Unca Cecil: Is it true, like my friends say, that George Bush can’t be made President for Life without changing the Constitution? No matter what the Supine Court says?
Technically, if the Supreme Court said he could be President for Life, that would be it, no matter what the Constitution says. That’s because, ultimately, it’s the Supreme Court’s job to say what the Constitution says.
One trusts they wouldn’t do that, of course. Not as much as one used to.
The point in question is NOT whether the war is foolish, something about which reasonable people may disagree, but whether Cecil’s comment was inappropriate. I feel it was.
Based upon the hundreds of his columns that I’ve read, I am reasonably sure that the “damn fool war” comment WAS intended to be humorous or sarcastic. The way Cecil chose to word this humor/sarcasm was unfortunate.
Cecil did an admirable job of answering the question of whether GWB had avoided military service. (Now I will assume the “damn fool war” comment was not a joke.) It was a good, informative, and objective column up until the last sentence. That bit of invective marred an otherwise fine piece of writing. His comment was superfluous, tacked-on, and partisan. I have come to expect more from Cecil, and I sincerely hope I don’t see more comments like this in the future. Of course Cecil is entitled to his opinions, but the way he shared this one was inappropriate. [/end assumption]
Yes, probably.
If you just want the facts, get an encyclopedia. I doubt that Cecil or any of the research board would be happy to hear that their sole purpose is to look up news stories and word etymologies for those of us who are too lazy to do the research ourselves. The column gives Cecil’s interpretation of the facts; that’s the way it’s always been, and it’s the reason I enjoy reading it, even when Cecil’s opinion differs from my own.
If so many posters on here are so horrified at having to read an opinion they don’t agree with, I suggest that they all find suitable objective reference material on their own and stop criticizing the column for failing to be something it never was intended to be.
I have been reading the Straight Dope columns online for a few years, and I don’t recall any columnist, Cecil Adams included, who opined on a current issue that was at the time as hotly debated, especially among the SDMB posters, as the current war.
I’m assuming that Cecil knew (or he assumed, depending on how much attention he pays to the SDMB) that the war was the Number One hot-button issue in Great Debates and the BBQ Pit. If my assumption is correct, I then wonder why Cecil tacked on his very brief opinion about the war to his column, and most notably, using a term such as “damn fool war”, which to me is much stronger than just saying that the decision to go to war is wrong.
Clearly he had to realize that the SDMB posters, among his most faithful readers, would react strongly (negatively or positively) to it.
I posted earlier in this thread with a glib “Cite?”, but I probably should have said “Can you elaborate?”. My brief post was a gibe at Cecil, trying to respond to his “post” in the same way any other poster would be responded to, as his tacked on opinion, if posted on the boards, would have received similar responses (and probably more vehement ones 
).
Was Cecil intentionally trying to fuel the fire, or was he just giving an opinion without considering the SDMB responses? Or did he not care whether or not a bunch of people on the boards would create such a stir from his comment?
uhhh I think he was just trying to air his opinion. If you were Cecil would you not air your opinion because it might upset some of the people with whom you provide a free message board. maybe but then thats what makes him an entertaining columnist and you an uniteresting commentator. Also I hardly think the phrase “damn fool war” was going too far Cecil obviously feels the war is unjustified, war is a horrible destructive activity ergo any unjustified war is a “damn fool war.”
Just to correct the record, the Cato Institute is neither liberal nor consevative, but rather is libertarian. It should come as no surprise that a libertarian think-tank opposes the initiation of force.
Perhaps you should quote what Powell really said and not the Internet clap-trap Reader’s Digest being sent all over creation.
See http://www.weforum.org/site/homepublic.nsf/Content/Remarks+from+Colin+Powell,+US+Secretary+of+State
…on a hotly debated issue not only on this message board, but throughout the world.
I think your question would be more accurate if you asked if I would not air my opinion on a hotly debated issue only tenuously related to the subject matter of the column because it would upset many of the people on a message board spawned from his columns. I don’t know whether I would, but I probably would not have used words like “damn fool war”. Of course…
…I’m an uninteresting commentator, so I suppose I’ll never have to make that decision.
I never said Cecil went too far, and you are correct that an unjustified war can be viewed as a damn fool war. But when the war in question is an issue of heated debate, which of the two characterizations do you think would more likely raise hackles?
** Banger** you seem to suggest Cecil should write the column that causes the least heckles, I’d rather he wrote the most informative, entertaining and honest article. The column would be a lot less interesting if cecil was constantly trying to avoid offending anyone.
I love the easy ones;
[ul]
[li]People are getting killed and injured.[/li][li]Far more residents of the subject country are being killed than Americans.[/li][li]It’s in another country. AKA invasion.[/li][li]There’s no proven threat to the US.[/li][li]It’s costing a ton of money.[/li][li]Most polls support the war.[/li][li]Those who don’t slavishly support the war are being called traitors.[/li][li]America, spreading democracy.[/li][li]The effects of the war are going to last a long, long time.[/li][li] If history judges <the sitting president> harshly–and it probably will–it won’t be for screwing up as a young smart aleck, but for getting us into this damn fool war. [/li]
[/ul]
There are, of course, more.
Someone else can point out the obvious differences.
Peace,
mangeorge
What are you quibbling about?? That they cleaned up awkward phrasing from the transcript of a spoken statement?? Or is that only allowed for liberals, with anyone else getting the stupid-sounding literal transliteration??
Here’s what he said:
“We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years and we’ve done this as recently as the last year in Afghanistan and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in…”
And here’s what you call “the Internet clap-trap Reader’s Digest”:
“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.”
(The bit about the Archibishop was inaccurate.)
And you are offended by either version of this sentiment…how?? Is it maybe the danger, the risk, the slight possibility that it will create some of that nasty 'ol American ‘exceptionalism’?? Man, some people just can’t stand it when Americans think they are, or ever have been, the good guys.
Whoops! My bad. It was in repsonse to the EX-Archbishop of Canterbury…his question was so long-winded, I missed it.
That isn’t your only whoops, Trollificus. Those two statements are very different. Which do you think should go into the history books?
The real quote, or the spun one?
What’s liberal got to do with it? Can’t resist a :rolleyes: