Actually, the real resemblance is the treacherous one – the hopelessly naïve belief that the people we’re trying to “liberate” see pluralistic democracy as the political summum bonum.
Oh, the Turkmen hate the Arabs,
And the Arabs hate the Turkmen,
And the Shi’ites hate the Sunni,
And everybody hates the Kurds…
The statement simply wasn’t “tacked on.” It’s not as if he were answering a question on piss-shiver and ended with “By the way, what also makes me shiver is the unsanctioned and unnecessary military agression in Iraq.” The original question all-but-directly makes the allegation, “Where does Bush get off sending troops to war if he wasn’t willing to fight himself?” Cecil’s response, as I interpreted it, was to present the facts and then point out that the accusation was as irrelevant as when similar accusations were leveled against Clinton after any of the unpopular decisions made during his administration. It’s fatuous to say that the statement came completely out of left field.
Next up: tennis balls bear amazing resemblance to the sun.
That’s another easy one. They’re spherical.
I can’t say it any better than the Lark. I, also, registered only to comment on Cecils comment about the current war. Its sad that some people hold on to bitter political animosity and ignore reality. The scenes of Iraqis welcoming our troops into Baghdad speak volumes about the correctness of the decisions made by George W. Bush. It is obvious with every passing day that history will speak more than kindly about the Presidency of GWB than the follies of William Jefferson Clinton. Apparently we can add Cecil to the Hall of Shame along with Martin Sheen, Michael Moore, Jenine Garofalo and the rest of the “quagmire” bunch.
. . . at least to someone. People probably said the same things about Lincoln that Cecil said about George II.
Somewhat in his defense, the advisability of going to war in Iraq is one of those topics on which reasonable people can disagree. Even the staunchest defender of the current national Administration should have had qualms about the outcome of a conflict in which no less than the international reputation of the United States of America was in play.
And I would much rather hear those kinds of qualms than the mewling and carping of those who seem to want to bring Saddam back for the supposed good of the Iraqi people. I heard some dirigible arsehole from the Red Cross this morning on NPR complaining that the Baghdad looters had destroyed valuable immunization records. So at least they didn’t contract tetanus or the mumps after being tied to metal bedframes and shocked with car batteries?
That being said, the outcome at the moment appears to point to what we all should have wanted given the invasion: a short war and a quick exit.
And here I thought that the Motley Fool was at war…
Also for those of you out there that think all conservatives are “evil” remember what Captain Amazing said:
"In 1854, anti-slavery Whigs, the anti-slavery parties, and the anti-immigrant parties came together to form the Republican party. "
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=177190
Lest you forget, Abe Lincoln was a Republican.
That said I don’t get the whole ire aimed at Cecil. We already knew he peppered his facts with opinions. This is no surprise. Does it get me angry? To tell you the truth, it did bother me. I was a bit pissed. Should he make a retractment? Hell no. Should he apologize? Hell no.
Now if he had composed an entire editorial on why we shouldn’t be at war- or ANY editorial for that matter- prowar or antiwar- THEN I would be the first one on the bandwagon demanding an apology. The point is 90% of the article was fact based.
One of the reasons we love his column is the sprinkling of humor/opinion throughout it. The longer you read his columns and books the more likely it is that he’ll say something to piss you off (even if it’s in jest.)
Hell, look at how he response to someone from Baltimore! Do we cry out for an apology? NO. His articles are 90% fact with 5% humor and 5% opinion sprinkled throughout.
I love cats. Cecil hates cats. Should I demand an apology from Cecil for saying he hates cats? Should he retract those comments? No.
yes back when republicans were a new progressive party. Do you really think the parties have not changed evolved away from their original positions in the last 150 years?
I’ll jump in again on that one.
Note that the fact that (so far) no WMDs have been used against US troops in no way proves, or even suggests, that Iraq had no WMDs. Their position was somewhat analogous to ours. We could have turned Baghdad into a parking lot with a few tactical nukes, but that would have utterly destroyed the legitimacy of our effort. Similarly, Saddam could have caused horrible deaths as well as much inconvenience to our troops by using chemical or biological agents, but by doing so he’d be admitting he was lying all along and therefore US fears and its subseqent war effort were in fact justified.
Same answer as 1.
To the extent that people speaking for the Administration use “liberating the Iraqi people” as one reason for what just happened, I sincerely hope not.
Much as one might sympathize with the oppressed Iraqi people, the only legitimate justification for what just happened would be a more or less immediate threat that Iraqui WMDs would find their way into the arms of terrorist groups who would then use them against the US. Making ourselves feel better for changing a brutal regime, no matter how brutal or where situated in the big wide world, is not sufficient justification for risking the entire international reputation of this country as the current Administration has just done.
If this Administration purposely risked this nation’s international reputation even partially for the purpose of “liberating the Iraqi people,” they deserve a worse reputation for international mendacity than any tinpot dictator such as Saddam.
I go further: the primary task of U.S. diplomacy at this moment must be to convince the world that we did what we did because of an immediate threat to our national security that, in our estimation, could be ameliorated in no other way short of war – even if that is a lie.
Indeed, it has been possible to call Republicans “conservative” and Democrats “liberal” only since 1964, when Barry Goldwater arranged a marriage between capitalists and segregationists.
Two points: 1) Some jerks have doubted the validity of my assertion that a lot of typically ignorant boneheaded Americans think Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11 or that it’s an important problem. To that I would like to draw your attention to the following story clipped wholesale without permission from Tom Tomorrow’s very fine blog www.thismodernworld.com:
NEW YORK - Thousands of construction workers and firefighters packed a noontime rally at ground zero Thursday in support of the war in Iraq (news - web sites) which, to many of them, began right there on Sept. 11, 2001.
And by the way, Newguy; if you really can’t say anything better than Lark I would like to take this opportunity to send you my sincere condolences.
–snip–
Many speakers and participants described the war as a natural outcome of the World Trade Center attack, drawing little distinction between the terrorist group al-Qaida and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).
“The war started right here on Sept. 11, 2001,” Gov. George Pataki said.
The central feature that makes a drama with a horrible outcome qualify as a true tragedy is the possession by the central character of a quality called hubris: the overweening arrogance that causes a powerful person to treat his perceptions with insufficient skepticism. It isn’t all that unusual for things to work out well in the first act because this leads the central character into becoming even more strong-and-wrong-headed than before thus continuing on the path of destruction and not realizing the error of his ways until it is too late to avoid disaster.
We are now in the middle of act one. I happen to live in New York — AKA Target A — and ferverently hope that I do not end my days imitating a pot roast under the spreading shade of a mushroom cloud.
Two points: 1) Some jerks have doubted the validity of my assertion that a lot of typically ignorant boneheaded Americans think Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11 or that it’s an important problem. To that I would like to draw your attention to the following story clipped wholesale without permission from Tom Tomorrow’s very fine blog www.thismodernworld.com:
NEW YORK - Thousands of construction workers and firefighters packed a noontime rally at ground zero Thursday in support of the war in Iraq (news - web sites) which, to many of them, began right there on Sept. 11, 2001.
–snip–
Many speakers and participants described the war as a natural outcome of the World Trade Center attack, drawing little distinction between the terrorist group al-Qaida and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).
“The war started right here on Sept. 11, 2001,” Gov. George Pataki said.
The central feature that makes a drama with a horrible outcome qualify as a true tragedy is the possession by the central character of a quality called hubris: the overweening arrogance that causes a powerful person to treat his perceptions with insufficient skepticism. It isn’t all that unusual for things to work out well in the first act because this leads the central character into becoming even more strong-and-wrong-headed than before thus continuing on the path of destruction and not realizing the error of his ways until it is too late to avoid disaster.
We are now in the middle of act one. I happen to live in New York — AKA Target A — and ferverently hope that I do not end my days imitating a pot roast under the spreading shade of a mushroom cloud.
And by the way, Newguy; if you really can’t say anything better than Lark I would like to take this opportunity to send you my sincere condolences.
I generally agree with your post, but I’m not so sure about this point. Once the war seemed imminent, the inspectors had left, so I don’t see how they had any part in preventing WMDs from being used during the war.
My personal guess is that since he knows he’ll lose the war with or without using WMDs, he can inflict more world political damage on the US by not using them. Their use would wouldn’t save him anyway, so why not make the US look worse in world opinion?
From Braintrees post (sorry, I don’t know enough about these boards to use the fancy quote thing)
“2) The fact that Saddam, assuming he had WMDs but couldn’t get his hands on them to use them PROVES THAT INSPECTIONS WOULD HAVE WORKED. All we had to do was keep harrassing him and the SOB would have remained stymied.”
To paraphrase the Master, what do the other Martians think about this Braintree? 
You REALLY think that weapons inspectors were what prevented Good ole Saddam from using WMD on us? lol, best laugh I’ve had all day. Thank you.
As I said in an earler post, WMD weren’t used for very specific reasons…namely it was a straight cost vs benifit analysys. Basically the cost (political) was not worth the very limited benifit Saddam and the Iraqis would of gotten by using them against our troops, who would of been fully protected. The worry wasn’t that he’d use them against our troops, the worry was that he’d use them against civilians, or more likely, give them to others to use against civilians…you know, the kind of guys that would hijack a plane full of innocent civilians and fly said plane into a building full of non combatants? That kind of guy? Heard of them?
As to your continued assertions that a large percentage of people in this country have been duped by the administration (or whatever) into thinking that Saddam=Usama Bin Laudin and that Iraq was somehow behind 911, to my mind you are still failing to make your point. (As a quick aside, do you EVER quote anything main stream and at least PRETENDING to be unbiased? This Modern World? I read through the entire site, and I detected a noticable, um, slant. lol). That aside, I still fail to see how this makes your point.
To quote (again, sorry about not knowing the fancy quote thing):
"NEW YORK - Thousands of construction workers and firefighters packed a noontime rally at ground zero Thursday in support of the war in Iraq (news - web sites) which, to many of them, began right there on Sept. 11, 2001.
–snip–
Many speakers and participants described the war as a natural outcome of the World Trade Center attack, drawing little distinction between the terrorist group al-Qaida and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)."
How does this prove that the people have been duped? Couple of points. First off, the jury is still out on if the Iraqis have WMD or not. Personally, I see circumstantial evidence mounting and feel they will find something out there…but time will tell.
However, what we DO know is that there were training facilities in Northern Iraq (in violation of 1991 surrender terms and UN resolutions btw), so I guess I can see where people might draw a parallel (but not necessarily that they completely equate the two). After all, the opening shots were fired on 9/11 at us, and war was declaired by terrorists ON us. Countries that harbor terrorists are automatically unfriendly towards us. Countries that invade other countries, subsequently lose and come to terms, and then violate those terms, do unfriendly and hostile things, produce (possibly) WMD and even use them on their own population from time to time, are fair game…as the Iraqis found out.
I guess I don’t see how this constitutes the people being duped by the administration (e.g. Terrorists attacked us starting the ‘war’ on 9/11, we are at war with Terrorists, Iraq has training facilities for Terrorists, harbors and supports Terrorists in a very vocal and public way by giving them money and official support in such countries as Palastine, etc etc).
Another point of course is that it HASN’T been proven, one way or the other, that Iraq DIDN’T assist the terrorist that attacked us…again, the jury is still out on that one, and a guy that would kill an estimated 100k of his own people, give money openly to the families of animals who go out and regularly kill innocent civilians in Israel is someone who certainly COULD have given aid and support. Myself, I’m taking a wait and see course on this last one…time will tell. But, you still haven’t made a convincing case that the majority of the people in this country feel that Iraq=Al Queda and Saddam=Bin Laden. Showing an obviously biased and unreported poll without even demographic information, and then a few sniped quotes in another obviously biased blog doesn’t make a good case.
If you want to be convincing, and it might do you some good as well, in future try reading and quoting from something that at least pretends to be partially fair and unbiased, that has two sides to a given issue instead of one very slanted side. For myself, I try and read and listen to both sides…at least then I can make an informed decision about the issues.
I don’t want to see another 9/11 or a giant mushroom cloud rising about New York one day either. To my mind, the things we have done in Afganastan and in Iraq now have lessened the chances of such happening here any time soon, and put countries on notice that we will brook no further acts against us without reprisals…lessened, but not made zero. Appeasement and doing nothing but ignoring things got us no where. After all, Bin Laudin and his merry men were planning this thing when Clinton was still in office and we weren’t specifically harrassing anyone or doing anything really, with the exception possibly of saving some muslims in the balkins from being ethnically cleansed. So, if doing nothing and appeasement doesnt work, maybe its time to try something different, something a bit more pro-active…
-XT
Revtim that seems like an ad hoc explanation and an overly complicated one. Saddam doesnt seem like the type to care what happens once he lost power. Why would Saddam have kicked the weapons inspectors out the first time if they posed no obstacle to his deployment of WMD?
I agree it’s complicated, and may very well be utterly wrong. But my point was not that they were not an obstacle, but not even present once the war started. Obstacle or not, they are certainly not a problem to Saddam if they aren’t there.
TheMemeWarrior, why is it so hard to understand?? He didn’t use them on our troops because they wouldn’t of been effective against our troops. All it would of done is inconvienced us and his own forces, and killed a lot of civilians. If you need an analogy, Hitler had a HUGE stock pile of the things and he never used em either. Ask yourself why and maybe you’ll understand why Saddam didn’t use his either.
-XT
** xtisme** if their so ineffective they hardly qualify as WMD. With Hitler your talking about a completly different set of circumstances and weaponry. I have no doubt that if Saddam had the scary WMD that was used to justify the invasion and was ina position to deploy them he would have done just that.
The length and quantity of your postings do not make them correct.
The posting I referenced made a number of lucid, accurate points, none of which were refuted by you, and I felt no obligation to repeat them. I do have a number of reasons for which I believe the war is just. Chief among them, although not nearly the only reason, is the humanitarian relief we brought to that country. It is undeniable that Hussein’s country was a haven for terrorism; we discovered the camps in the north and killed a number of them, forcing them to flee into Iraq. But even war-challenged people like yourself cannot claim that U.N. inspections would have done anything to alleviate the tortured religious and political prisoners in Hussein’s prisons. Would the U.N. have found WMD? Perhaps, though not likely. We found a bio lab disguised in a truck in downtown Baghdad; the inspectors found nothing. We found a number of torture chambers, bodies and records of those killed. The U.N. found nothing. We have not cleansed the world of terrorism, but we have made a statement to those who would harbor it. They now know we will not tolerate it, nor will we tolerate continued violation of U.N. resolutions.
BTW, try not to be so literal. When the people in NY said “the war started here on 9/11,” I believe they were referring to the war on terror, in which Iraq (i.e, Saddam Hussein) was a principle player.
I find it interesting that those on the left in this country claim as one of their main causes civil rights. Yet, they would have us turn our back on those in other countries who are butchered by their dictator. Its not because they believe in torture; its purely political. To the left, the wrong party is in the White House and any policy decisions need to be denigrated at all costs. Its sad that the Iraqi people would have continued to suffer if the anti-war people had been successful.