wow... Tamara Saviano got screwed.

It is tempting to blather on ad nauseum about my feelings, beliefs, passions, et al; however, let's cut to the chase.
70 years ago, Franklin was correct when he declared to a much more frightened and wary America, ". . . the only thing we have to fear is, fear itself!"
And who is spewing fear 24/7 like a firehose at full throttle ? Multi-colored 'alerts'? Duct tape and plastic sheeting? Al Qaeda behind every Cherry tree?
Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?
What are you going to do about it?

This whole discussion is symptomatic of the erosion of our basic civil liberties since Bush took office. I do fear terrorist attacks, but I think Bush and Ashcroft have used this fear (on the part of millions of Americans. However--this does not justify our agressive stance with Iraq. They have not changed what they've been doing for years. If there is a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al-Quaida, the case has not been made in a convincing manner (to me and many others). In the meantime, North Korea is running amuck with acknowledged nuclear weaponry, and Bush's administration doesn't seem to care. Much may be going on behind the scenes, but...

Like Jeff, I am neither over conservative or liberal. I am just a concerned American who is scared silly.

Hot damn. Ashamed to share the same view as other people? Don't worry about it, because it's just your view...although you are entitled to your own opinion of other people.
My advice, as a pseudo-intellectual: express your own opinions, everyone, because that seems to be what this is about. Don't worry about stepping on anyone's toes...but if you do, good for you. Who knows who's right here - I doubt any of us is - but dammit, I'll respect anyone who can give their opinon, back it up, and without cutting anyone else down...at least not without good reason.

Two things:
For those that think there is a massive attack on civil liberties: What does one gain by taking the civil liberties from another? I see no profit in it.
The other: I feel for Tamara. One should not have to give up their Constitutional Rights ofr anything, especially not to earn a living. However, unlike the patriots that founded our country and died defending it, many of us are weak. We are whores who sell our rights to the highest bidder, in exchange for cell phones and S.U.V.s. We whine about politics and world events, then we change channels, rather than change our world. My thanks to those, unlike us, who follow the creed of "Deeds, not words!"

I suggest that during the 2004 elections, you remember where Bush has taken this country and vote against him at all costs. We are fighting this war via public poll and the media. The Department of Homeland Security, John Ashcroft and that other beady eyed little guy, have no right to come on TV and say things like "We re pretty sure that somehow, somewhere, someday we will be attacked again, so watch out". This is purely a controlling and irresponsible ploy to make us fall in line and bow to them as Government officials. Let's talk about the Economy and what we are going to do to get our American brothers and sisters employed again.

What a load of crap that Tamara got fired. These CEO weasels have no spin either. All they care about is the price of their stock. We are turning into a bunch of Politically Correct wimps. In other words, our Government has taken control of our lives and we don't even know it. Stand up! Speak Out! Before it is too late. Fire Ashcroft, Bush & Rumsfeld and the whole lot of them. FREEDOM will only die if we let it.

I will be 70 next week. In lookin back on those
years I recall being a child during blackouts in L.A. in
the 40's; In the 50's young men I went to high
school with were dying in Korea; Jack Kennedy gave me hope and pride, Johnson gave us lies about Viet Nam and civil liberties at home; Nixon
gave us shame and sorrow; Ford did his best; Mr.
Carter gave us humanity and sadly little else;
Reagan gave us a Big Daddy to look up to and an
even bigger debt to overcome; Bush senior gave us
a shaky economy and a failed military plan for
Iraq; Clinton gave us joy and prosperity and more
heartbreak from stupidity; and now, George W. has
possibly given us the end of society as we know
it. As a small girl I was told by my parents that there was God, Jesus Crist and Franklin D.
Roosevelt. This country pulled together as never
before when we were forced into a world war; too
bad we don't have a leader such as F.D.R. As a
mother and a grandmother I would feel so much more confidante about our country's future if we
could pull together once again.

What does one gain by taking the civil liberties from another?

The most precious substance in the world is power. People go to huge lengths to get it. Civil liberties are the protection we have against others gaining undue amounts of power over us. We have the right to speak out (within reason) without concern that the government will put us in prison for our beliefs. We have the right to not have our government intrude into every aspect of our lives, even if we haven't committed or even been accused of committing a crime. A woman has the right to get an abortion and another person has the right to protest her getting the abortion.

Civil liberties are aspects of our lives which we seem to be trading away bit by bit for an elusive sense of security. Benjamin Franklin said, as I recall, "Those who would trade away essential liberty for temporary freedom deserve neither liberty nor freedom."

Free Speech ? We have not had "Free Speech" in this country for years. The courts have ruled that everyone from your Parents, Teachers, Employers to you local Protected Group can limit what you say and when you say it.

Charlie should just sing songs because he certainly can't think and those morons who fired Saviano, may their evangelistic "god" forgive them. This country is changing and moving away from all the glorious ideals of the Founding Fathers. May God Bless America the Beautiful but damn those narrow minded bigots. Charlie! Will you volunteer to sing at the thousands of funerals of all the innocent dead children in Baghdad. As a father it's the least you can do.

Free Speech does not mean free speech without consequence. No one has been muzzled. Ms. Saviano is still free to express her opinion, but when a person's opinions do not fit with the views of a PRIVATE employer, they will suffer unfortunately. Can you say racist things publicly and on your own time and expect to keep your job? Probably not. Sean Penn has a right to go to Iraq and I have a right not pay to see performers who annoy me (regardless of the reason--Gilbert Gottfried, I'm talking to you!).

All around me I see posters that read "Don't attack Iraq." Everytime I do I want to write on it in big red pen "no, let him attack us first" which is exactly what will happen if we do nothing! The bombs or chemicals or planes may not come directly from Iraq but Saddam isn't the type to say no to a terrorist who wants help getting materials to attack the U.S.A. I have no desire to see my friends and family killed, either at home ar at war. I am in no way happy to see my brother and numerous close friends kiss their families and children good-bye to go fight evil. But every time I see it my heart fills with pride. I don't disagree with your rights to have an anti-war protest or to loudly disagree with our leaders, but when you do remember that people like my brother, my fiance and my best friend are over there fighting evil to protect your right to do it.

Daniels was free to say his piece, Saviano was free to say her piece, her employer was free to fire her ass. Penn was free to do a pathetic homage to Jane Fonda, everyone else is free to make fun of him.

It's charmingly pathetic that the "liberal" notion that freedom applies only to "liberal" opinions (you're entitled to my opinon, the constitution sez so). Of course, the classical liberals would have run the modern iteration over in their 4-horse carriages (SUV's, anyone?).

Isn't Saviano willing to stand behind her words and their consequences? The Framers were!

Does anyone reading and posting on this site know how many UN Resolutions have been written against Israel since 1966? Does anyone have an answer as to why there has never been sanctions put against Israel? Has anyone even bothered to go to the UN site and read the resolutions? I am so afraid for our country. Not because of Iraq, the missiles they have will never reach us. I am afraid for our country, because the world as we know it, if we attack first, will never be the same. How can we explain it to our children? That our elected government is no better than the terrorist that blew up the Twin Towers? Our elected government will continue to support Israel, and try to take over the rest of the Arab nations, and we as Americans aren't allowed to question this? We aren't allowed to disagree? We do not live in a Nazi or Communist country. But lately, it seems that not one person is suppose to say or do anything against Mr. Bush or our government. Israel has been attacking the Arab Nations for over 30 years. And our government has stood by and let them. I don't see the United States "helping" any nation but Israel. If our Government does go to war with Iraq, then Israel and the United States think they will be in control of the whole middle-eastern region. I don't think the Arab Nations will stand for it, and I fear greatly for what that will do to us here in the United States. For those of you that can't find the UN site, here are a few Resolutions for you to ponder on while you repeat propaganda the Government wants you to think and feel.

Resolution 337 Dated 08/15/73.

The Security Council.

Having considered the agenda contained in document S/Agenda? 1736,
Having noted the contents of the letter from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/10983),

Having heard the statement of the representative of Lebanon concerning the violation of Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity and the hijacking, by the Israeli air force, of a Lebanese civilian airliner on lease to Iraqi Airways,

Gravely concerned that such an act carried out by Israel, a Member of the United Nations, constitutes a serious interference with international civil aviation and a violation of the Charter of the United Nations,

Recognizing that such an act could jeopardize the live and safety of passengers and crew and violates the provisions of international conventions safeguarding civil aviation,

Recalling it resolutions 262 (1968) of 31 December 1968 and 286 (1070) of 9 September 1970.
1. Condemns the Government of Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity and for the forcible diversion and seizure by the Israeli air force of a Lebanese airliner form Lebanon's air space.
2. Considers that these actions by Israel constitutes a violation of the Lebanese-Israeli Armistice Agreement of 1949, the cease-fire resolutions of the Security Council of 1967, the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the international conventions on civil aviation and the principles of international law and morality;
3. Calls on the International Civil Aviation Organization to take due account of this resolution when considering adequate measure to safeguard international civil aviation against these actions.
4. Calls on Israel to desist from any and all acts that violate Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity and endanger the safety of international civil aviation and solemnly warns Israel that if such acts are repeated the council will consider taking adequate steps or measures to enforce it's resolutions.

Resolution 338 (1973 of 22-October 1973

The Security Council

1. Calls upon all parties to the present fighting to cease all firing and terminate all military activity immediately, no later than 12 hours after the moment of the adoption of this decision, in the positions they now occupy;
2. Calls upon he parties concerned to start immediately after the cease-fire the implementation of Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) in all of it's parts;
3. Decides that immediately and concurrently with the cease-fire, negotiations shall start between the parties concerned under appropriate auspices aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East.

Which brings us all the way to Resolution 1405 (2002)

Adopted by the Security Council at its 4516th meeting, on 19 April 2002

The Security Council,

Reaffirming it's resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967, 338 (1973 of 22 October 1973, 1397 (2002) of 12 March 2002, 1402 (2002) of 30 March 2002, 1403 (2002) of 4 April 2002, and the Statement of it's President of 10 April 2002 (S/PRST/2002/9)

Concerned by the dire humanitarian situation of the Palestine civilian population, in particular reports from the Jenin refugee camp of an unknown number of deaths and destruction,

Calling for the lifting of restrictions imposed, In particular in Jenin, on the operations of humanitarian organizations, including the international committee of the Red Cross and United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East;

Stressing the need for all concerned to ensure the safety of civilians, and to respect the universally accepted norms of international humanitarian law,

1. Emphasizes the urgency of access of medical and humanitarian organizations to the Palestinian civilian population;
2. Welcomes the initiative of the Secretary-General to develop accurate information regarding recent events in the Jenin refugee camp through a fact-finding team and request him to keep the Security Council informed;
3. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Then there is resolution 1451
Adopted by the Security Council at its 4670th meeting, on 17 December 2002

The Security Council,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force of 4 December 2002 (S/2002/1328), and also reaffirming its resolution 1308 (202) of 17 July 2002,

1. Calling upon the parties concerned to implement immediately it's resolution 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973;
2. Decides to renew the mandate of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force for a period of six months, that is until 30 June 2003;
3. Requests the Secretary-General to submit at the end of this period a report on the developments in the situation and the measures taken to implement resolution 338 (1973)

So many hawks fall back on the tired old cliche that we should "support our troops over there". I think we all do support them, they are us. But the fact is, no one asks them for their policy decisions. They go where, and kill whoever they are told. So when we protest the actions of our troops, we are not against them individually, we are against the actions that they have been instructed to carry out. The comment by WJO, "What does one gain by taking the civil liberties away from another?" may be the most short sighted piece of ignorance I've ever read.

This war that Bush and his cronies are insisting on having is going to cause civil war in this country! People from opposing points of view (on both sides) should be able to admit that EACH of the views represented (both pro and con) about
whether this impending war is just or not, do have some validity and there should be a point at which both sides can meet, and make a compromise for the sake of PEACE in this country and everywhere! Dzstar

OK, to stay on topic:

I am in favor of a war with Iraq, if need be. That said, Charlie's "open letter" was a beautiful collection of logical fallacies and idiotic ramblings, serving only to convince none and re-enforce the beliefs of the simple-minded who look to country music stars for political guidance.

Also, I am very sorry that Ms. Saviano lost her job - however, I accept the rights of companies to hire and fire at will. The way to prevent this is not to scare the companies with legal action (giving the state more control over how we live our lives), but to punish the companies involved by not patronizing them, not giving them our money, and voicing our opinion like free citizens.

Ms. Saviano was NOT denied her right to free speech - she can say whatever she wants in that sense. She is not, however, entitled to require a company to keep her on staff or to give her a platform (not that they did) for her opinions.

Was she wronged, ethically? I'd say yes - but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. Write the idiots involved, write Mr. Daniels, and express your contempt - that's how this marketplace of ideas should function.

The public would be outraged and grateful if he were to do better research and trace these rallies to their origins. He'd discover that organizing groups included the Answers Coalition, which got together with the American Muslim Council to celebrate the 11th anniversary of the Persian Gulf War, calling it the "War against the People of Iraq."

All these groups are fronts for terrorists organizations! Worse than that, the National Committee to Protect Political Freedom -- what a lovely, peaceful name -- which provides legal support to terrorists such as the first WTC bomber also helped organize these same rallies you morons attended. Who happens to be the president of this group? Sammy Alarion, possible founder of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad who refused to answer questions after 9/11 and whom the FBI just arrested a few days ago at his job as a professer at the University of South Florida.

The International Answer Program and the International Action Center are sponsors and organizers of anti-war protests. Who are you sleeping with, America? My God, we all need to realize that war was declared on 9/11 and some of the tough issues better start being addressed.

What happened to taking out the terrorists before they have a chance to strike? Hiding in fear and worrying about our money will only allow these scum to fester! Saddam Hussein has killed more than a half million of his own people, has had 17 resolutions placed against him, gives out punishment that makes Hitler look easy-going, holds his country in fear, has used chemical weapons and backs, harbors and helps terrorists. What more has to be shown to you?

Andy W. - not disagreeing with his main points about the Iraq situation, but don't agree with the way the situation has been handled regarding Saviano, nor with Daniels' tone in his rant: "either/or" may be a legitimate call regarding action, but isn't ever regarding opinion.

charlie's letter is a pretty bad case of painting those who call for peace as idiots, eh? i mean jeez. that's sadly mistaken. generally, those who call for peace, like the vets, have no illusions about saddam, and nobody is fool enough to talk about turning swords into plowshares. we're surely going to have to wait for the sweet bye and bye for that scene!
i myself, vetran and current national guardsman, am convinced that we as americans are being insulted with lies, fabricated evidence, whipped-up war fever and hysteria. just like vietnam and the first gulf war, the administration is selling the war with fabricated evidence. you may have heard that the un's nuclear weapons inspector reported to the un that the evidence supporting iraqi efforts to obtain nuclear weapons materials in africa was fabricated... you may have heard that the un was persuaded by us officials to release only part of the 12,000 pages of documents turned over to the un by iraq--the other 8,000 pages probably show how iraq's biological and nuclear programs were supplied by the us during the reagan and bush I administrations. remember how during gulf war I stories were put out to the media that iraqi soldiers had thrown babies out of incubators to die... total fabrication, pushed by a public relations firm! come on, is that america?
is that the kind of dirty tricks necessary... if the war was just?
sgt a

Saviano's firing is not an issue of loss of free speech; this is an issue of firing without just cause.

And by God, if you CAN get away with firing civilians for political reasons, or to soothe the temper of a celebrity, then America is dead already.

I wonder if Charlie Daniels would call Maj. General Anthony Zinni, Gen. Wesley Clark, Scott Ridder (a former Marine officer), and Col. David Hackworth "hippy peace-loving liberals". They are all men who have devoted their lives to serving America and defending it's values--and they are all against invading Iraq!!

I never liked Charlie Daniels's music. In fact, I thought it pretty much sucked. (The South's gonna do just WHAT again, confederate romancers?) Daniels sure is entitled to his opinion, however, and whatever (former) star power he can wield to leverage out his thoughts, so be it.

But his letter just shows what a washed-up, Lee Greenwood wannabe asshole the real Charlie Daniels is (in my humble opinion)!!

Charlie, you've been irrelevant for years. Who gives a damn what you think? Take that stupid cowboy hat, your twenty tattoos and your sixteen teeth and go chew some tobacco at the trailer park and shut up. It's redneck idiots like you who give this country a bad name.

For those of you who are suggesting that it is the right of an employer to fire an employee because they spoke out on personal matter, try this simple test.

Imagine the item you just wrote and posted on this board got back to -your- employer and they decided they didn't like your opinion. So they fire you.

Now... who here can honestly say that they would feel this was a reasonable thing to have happen to them?

Yeah... thought so.

It's hard to believe this country can even function with morons like CD and those few idiots above who agree with him roaming the countryside. You have to be either completely illiterate or an O'Reilly dittohead to actually think that Iraq is a threat to us. Remember the war on terror? This has nothing to do with it.

Well, aside from the matter of Iraq, the matter here is should the woman have been fired for voicing her anti-war opinion. I am pro-war in this instance, but completely against her being fired for privately speaking her mind.

The Dixie Chick in the middle says she's ashamed that Bush is from Texas.

http://www.wral.com/entertainment/2037780/detail.html

Take that, Charlie.

Maines... Daniels... into the Thunderdome... now.
Two go in, one comes out.

"blah blah blah...Bunch" In the first sentence Charlie Daniels declares himself the trash of bigotry, and hate mongering. Don't see how? "...Bunch". The rest follows, more hate mongering, cliches, strawmen arguements and other emotional garbage. So pathetic, didn't even rate an FU.

What isn't pathetic is the standard way the right wins its way, by throwing its privilege around. If we had a real democracy, little minds like the cowards at Jones Media, and Kirt Webster would have to have real jobs, instead of kissing ass and destroying freedom, to keep sucking at the old boy privilege network.

I took the time to read all of the posts before deciding to respond. I'm 22, White, Texan, Male, with no political "party" affiliations.

The overwhelming amount of comments posted here are either the same unsubstantiated propaganda and outright lies about Iraq that Hawks have been regurgitating to justify war for decades or uninspired name calling sessions between "liberals" and "conservatives."

A few of the comments posted were right on, but most of it sounds like any hour of programming on the Fox (Faux) News Channel.

Saddam Hussein is a fucked up guy. No doubt about it. He is a dictator and has done MANY evil things in the past. But exactly what has he done in the last 10 years to anyone in the world that would justify going to Iraq and pummeling an already war-torn and struggling population with bombs for 60 days? And what has he done to us EVER? (other than assist us in killing shitloads of Iranians in the 80's with chemical and biological weapons that WE provided him? Which, we now want to take back because, well, what semi-intelligent person would have ever thought that he might use them on us? We should be able to support and arm all of the evil dictators in the world with no expectation of retaliation when we fuck them over, right??)

Exactly how many of the world's problems have been SOLVED through war?
Sure, the other side may run back to their nearly-leveled country, now covered in the rotting carcasses of civilian casualties, and stay quiet for a few years -- but does the threat really go away? When you have an argument with someone, does kicking the shit out of them resolve the problem? NO. What it does is make sure that they still hate you, and one day. . .when the time is right, they'll come back for you (9/11/01.)

As ugly as it sounds, and as uncomfortable as it may be for most people to admit, the terrorist attacks on this country in September of 2001 were not carried out by cowards. They were not committed for no reason, and they were NOT AN ATTACK ON OUR FREEDOM. Supporting and training terrorists to fight your enemies, with promises of rebuilding their country and assisting them as they have assisted you and then deserting them, giving them the historic American "fuck you" when our goals are accomplished, is what breeds terrorism.
Supporting Israel, which at one time had a genuine need for US backed military aggression against the neighbors that were invading it, but which now uses past transgressions and the acts of a handful of despicable fundamentalists to justify the genocide of an innocent people is what breeds terrorism.

Until the American people can remove the blood-leaking tit of capitalist greed, arrogance, and ignorance from their mouths; and clear the decades of disinformation disseminated by the mainstream media monolith from their indolent, TV-saturated brains -- this country will continue to be run into the ground by RICH, WHITE, MEN -- with old scores to settle, small penises to compensate for, and countries full of "brown people" to fear and KILL.

WAKE UP.

Patriots during the revolution willingly gave their life to protect and preserve the rights of people. "Give me liberty or give me death" became a rallying cry. Those patriots were fighting *against* the ruling government usurping their rights.

Today's conservative "patriots" have corrupted the meaning of patriot to an exact opposite. Their rallying cry is "follow my government right or wrong, or give me death". How many times have you heard conservatives say "I would gladly give up my right to xxx for xxx". True patriots would roll over in their graves. These people think it is a positive attribute to roll over to oppression. It doesnt take courage to follow a corrupt government. It doesnt take courage to castigate the unpopular opinions from the safety of the government and corporate funded point of view.

It takes courage to take a stand against these loud mouth followers like Charlie Daniels. It takes courage to say this is wrong. True patriots stand up even for the little attacks on their liberty. That is what this country stands for, not what these loud mouth followers so eagerly proclaim: "My country right or wrong". This country stands for freedom *from* oppressive government. Not freedom to follow the government or leave. That was the british point of view and we revolted and won. Can we win again? How many are aware we are at war (and I'm not talking about iraq or terror)?

If Tamara Saviano's company was so worried that her views would be misconstrued as their views, couldn't they just have sent out yet another open email reminding people that an individual is a separate entity from her employer and that an individual's opinions do not necessarily reflect on the company? But of course, that wouldn't be rash enough, now would it?

Speaking as a Canadian I find it disturbing that George W. Bush is getting away with what he is doing and not enough Americans are asking the important questions. Interesting that when he was sworn in he swore to uphold the constitution. Well, in the constitution it is clearly stated that a President does not have the sole power to declare a war , that a vote has to be taken by congress. clearly this has not been done, oh but George W. & his boys have clearly swept up the American people into a frenzy blowing out of proportion how dangerous Saddam is, well I fear a George W. Bush more than Hussein. But then again, they had to say the war was to fight terrorism, and weapons of mass destruction. in recent recorded history more acts of terrorism have been carried out on some of the poorest countries by the U.s. government. And Bush says we have to fear Saddam? But some of us know what this war is all about, oil, so that some greedy people can get richer on oil because the middle east is so rich in oil reserves, and besides the Bush family has some ties into oil and have had for some time now. i would never want my children dying in a war so that the boys in oil could get richer.. where is the proof that saddam made any threat against anyone? none that i could see, in my opinion the american people have been duped by a corrupt few in their government, i say wake up america, the real patriots would turn over in their graves. I love the american people, i just dont like their government leaders.

The whole quote is "My country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right. When wrong, to be set right."

And from Thomas Jefferson, "Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just."

Now... who here can honestly say that they would feel this was a reasonable thing to have happen to them?

Yeah... thought so.

Reasonable? Probably not. Illegal? Nah.

You do realize there's a difference, right?

First off, I absolutely support the war. I saw first hand what Saddamn did to Kuwait and I am absolutely convinced that Saddamn provided aid in the form of intellegince and logistics to Al Queda. I am furious at the bias of much of the news media in trying to suppress the activities and rallies by those who support our troops and those who support the war.
You don't have to support the war. You do have to support the people in the military. To curse those who serve (as even government people here in Wisconsin have done) ought to be grounds for disenfranchisement as a citizen.
Saying that...to all the people who are protesting properly against the war, I applaud you and I am appalled at anyone who has the audacity to call themselves an American who tries to suppress your freedoms. If we lose the right to disagree, we lose America. However, spitting on or threatening to harm our servicemen or their families is not a part of protesting. Destroying the memorials to 911 and burning someone else's flag is not your right. You want to buy and burn your own flag, fine that is your right and it should remain so. Some of my fellow veterans and others have forgotten that it was the Constitution they were protecting and the people it covers which the flag represents. However if you want to burn a flag you better remember to leave mine alone. I will harm you if you try to suppress my rights or destroy my property. Or harm my brothers and sisters in arms. As our one of our founding fathers said "don't tread on me".
And the losers who were responsible for firing Tamara should be prosecuted not only for employment violations but also for violating her civil rights. Normally I hate the ACLU (Anti-Christian Liberals United) but this is definately a job for them.

I've been a Charlie Daniels fan since childhood, but no more. Whether you are in favor of invading Iraq or not, it's just un-American to start calling other citizens who protest "traitors." Jeez, this is the kind of stuff you expect in the U.S.S.R. , not here in America.

To all those people who are so sure that Saddam is behind 9/11, just remember our government has lied to us before. The attack on our Navy boats in the Gulf of Tonkin that started the Vietnam War never happened. That doesn't prove anything about what Bush is telling us, but we should'nt be so sure.

Saddam is a bas****, but theres a lot of bas****s running third world countries out there. Wanna invade em all?

As someone who got beat by my old man a lot as a kid, and who has had trouble getting into fights myself, I don't think "get tough" is such a smart thing to do. Theres gotta be a smarter way.

I am a veteran, and am a generally conservative person. I have a lot of clear cut beliefs when it comes to right and wrong. I spent my time in the Army, my brother was a Marine, and my sister spent her time in uniform as well.

There are some very disturbing things that have been said and done since the World Trade Center Attack in the name of Patriotism and Self-Defence that trouble me.

First, to stay on topic, Charlie Daniels has every right in the world to say whats on his mind. We do not need to agree with him, and we do not have to support his opinion. This is the core of FREEDOM OF SPEECH!

On the other hand, it would appear to me that Tamara has a Constitutional right to her own opinion as well. And a right to respond to an unsolicited message sent to her personal E-mail by Charlie Daniel's PR man. It would appear to me that her employer has attempted to stifle her right to FREEDOM OF SPEECH from her own home. This is a violation of her Constitutionally guaranteed CIVIL RIGHTS!

I was troubled by Charlie Daniels....entire With US or Against Us mentallity. I remember in the thirties a group of people who had the same idea. They were NAZIS!

Our Constitution guarantees our rights to voice our disagreements, and dissention vocally. This is what differentiates the United States from other countries. We can speak our minds, and support causes we believe in. Thousands of brave men and women have died to guarantee this right to everyone in this country.

What makes this country great is that me and my neighbor do not need to see eye-to-eye and goose-step in cadence down the street for both of us to claim the title of American. We all share that title whether we are liberal or conservative. We live in a country where we have the right to disagree, and to still remain part of the group. Even Muslim Americans are still Americans, and are entitled to the rights and protections our Constitution extends.

I have heard people state, "Who are we to question Bush and the Governement? They are great men!" Oh Contrerre! They are our Employees! The Government works for the people in this Country and not the other way around. We elect them, and they are ultimately answerable to us. We are THE PEOPLE that are listed in the Constitution as WE THE PEOPLE! We all have a right to question their actions, and their motives.

Actively questioning our governemnt's actions is truly the largest part of being an American! If we did not; then this would not be a democracy, but Tyranny! Many of us forget that we do not work for the Bureaucratic juggernaut that is the U.S. Government. It is the other way around. We have a right to elect people to change it if we do not like it. SO GET INVOLVED if you are not happy with current status quo!

One last parting thought. Many of you have questioned some of the legislation (Patriot Act....Scary Stuff) that has passed, and a growing trend towards paranoia here in the U.S.A... A loss of rights. I think Shakespeare said it best...

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind.... And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded with patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader, and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done.
And I am Caesar."

- William Shakespeare


Freedom......use it, breathe it, speak it, and live it or you may wake up some day and found you have lost it!

Sincerely,

Alvin D. Wells

P.S. Just to let you know my position. I do support our troops always, but I think all out war and Nation Building are unnecessary at this time. However, we need to be ready to go in and take him to task if he quits cooperating! I do think the threat of war was necessary to get his cooperation. I think we need to take immediate stock of North Korea and the raving lunatic who controls this NUCLEAR ARMED LOOSE CANNON!

Alvin, very well put. I do not believe that Bush is using war as subterfuge and I am not a Republican. I also think war is inevitable, though it will be much easier to get to the next phase - a new Iraq - with support from the world community and I am willing to wait a short while to improve that situation.

But you are completely correct about No. Korea - this is a terrible situation on many levels, including the light it is casting on our Iraq policy. We appear - and to a certain extent, are - hypocritical.

Daniels is a freaking moron. Head-shakingly stupid beyond all belief. Hey, dipshit: this war will make us LESS safe. It's a recipe for disaster and a recruiting wonderland for Bin Laden. But hey, Charlie, it'll make you feel like a man.

Having read the full account at twangzine (www.twangzine.com/front.html), I'm struck by the fact that Charlie Daniels is now so dumb he doesn't know how to turn the caps lock off when he e-mails.

Gee, you people seem to be dwelling on the past quite a bit. If this is the left's answer to FreeRepublic and Lucianne, then it's a pathetic one. Newsflash!!! 62% of students at the UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS (yes a college, and probably the most liberal in the state) support a forcible disarmament of Iraq, 54% of democrats supported it!!! Is it going to take a city getting dirty-bombed, or nuked for you to understand that Saddam is a threat? If you want to protest, go to Baghdad and protest Saddam's eye-gouging and child-raping torture methods. Protesting in a free society isn't courageous. BOYCOTT FRENCH AND GERMAN PRODUCTS!!!!!!!

Here's the biggest lie in the whole story: "And GAC issued a statement saying Saviano was fired not for her views, but because she didn't state clearly enough in her e-mails that her opinions were her own and not that of the company."

Yeah, right! What if the lady had sent Charlie Daniels an email saying "Right on, Chuck! I agree 100%!" Would they have fired her still? Hey, she made Charlie Daniels think THE COMPANY agreed with him, instead of just her, and we can't have that, right?

Sure.

Apparently they think we're morons. I say, if it's supposedly okay to fire someone for her personal political opinion, then why doesn't GAC just SAY that's what they're doing? 'Cause this little lie above is just an insult to every sentient observer.

And, Charlie, I grew up in a trailer park in Utah, and I'M against the war. How you like THEM apples?

Armed resistance to foreign occupation is legitimate. This is not a complicated inference. Even the British understood it two hundred years ago, and I'm sure that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis understand it today. In fact, millions of Moslems in the Middle East have understood it for at least as long as the British. The British, by the way, created Iraq. They deliberately constructed a nation composed of Sunni and Shiite moslems and the Kurds, all of whom hated one another, and thereby condemned the creation to an indefinite inability to govern itself without the imperial intervention of British administration. Today, the British Empire has been reduced to the same subordinate status that it once relegated to those whom it conquered. We may eventually join our British brethren in this pathetic parade of imperial decline or we might renounce the false promise which empire provides and continue the project which our ancestors conferred upon us. But we can't do both.

A couple of obvious points:

Saviano got screwed

Daniels is a dumb-ass redneck

Saviano was pretty dumb herself to include her company info (signature) as part of her email

When will our admin ever get it into their heads that it is precisely our uncalled for interventions - be it Iran-Iraq, Panama, Nicaragua, Korea, Vietnam, Pakistan-India that have spawned the likes of Saddam, Bin Laden and other dictators who turn against us!

Our arrogance will only bring us to our knees - need to look no further than USSR ...even mighty Rome feel fast and history repeats itself - but of course probably this admin needs to read history first!

Tamara Saviano's comments of bullshit propaganda were right on the money. Charlie Daniels was doing nothing but reiterating the ridiculous John "McCarthy" Ashcroft and George "Caesar" Bush war machine rhetoric that we hear time and time again on every news channel on my goddamned television. In my name, our government is starting a war to defend each and every soccer mom and business exec's right to drive their Hummers, and I'm supposed to keep my mouth shut? The entire world (sans Britain) hates me in reaction to your idiotic foriegn policy and you say I'm either with you or against you ,Mr. President?? I don't think so...
Thank you Tamara, for standing up for what it is that you believe is right.. now it is time to do what is right... say whatever it is that you want to say about whatever it is that you want to say it about and quit hiding behind the first amendment. It is your right to say what you want, and it is your (ex)employers right to employ who they deem fit. End of story, find another job...
peace..

Charlie Daniels hasn't changed. Remember "Uneasy Rider"? The narrator, who claims he wants to avoid a fight, preemptively attacks a guy and proceeds to give a ludicrous explanation of why he did it. Laying it on thicker and heavier, the Uneasy Rider claims his adversary is a thoroughly dangerous man and an evil mastermind. Fortunately, his audience will believe anything, even if the charges are easily refuted ("I ain't even got a garage! You can call home and ask my wife!") Then, just for fun, he assaults the whole bunch of them before making a quick escape. God bless America.

The public is grossly unaware of how our role in the world has been perceived ( correctly or incorrectly ) by the rest of the world. Most people believe in the jingoistic version of American history where America is the good guy and America is the defender of freedom. They conveniently forget that this same America is guilty of genocide against the Native Americans, slavery against the Africans, the establishment of military bases ringing the world in order to conquer a phantom menace, the numerous proxy wars over the years, the utter hypocracy of our support for one dictator while we undermine another, and the imposition of our version of capitalism on countries that are still suffering from the impact of European colonialism. Most Americans do not understand that the news media stopped asking tough questions about Bush long ago. Most Americans are unaware of the vast conflicts of interest within this administration - concerning Iraq.

In short, most Americans are willfully ignorant.

There are many, many dangers in this world. There are nuclear powers that have been advocates of and worked closely with the people that perpetrated 9-11, but they don't live in Iraq. They live in Pakistan. There are wealthy benefactors that contributed directly to the terrorists that brought down the world trade center, but but they don't live in Iraq. They live in Saudi Arabia. There are unscrupulous men that have the means and motivation to use the power of their nation to take control of the world - and push their beliefs on evryone, but but they don't live in Iraq. They live in Washington D.C..

If the weapons inspectors find real evidence of a clandestine NBC weapons program in Iraq, the world should work together to destroy them. If the Iraqi people want to be free, they shoudl rise up and destroy Saddam. But to destroy countless lives - of people who are just trying to survive and raise their family - to inflict harm on a single man, is ludicrous. To establish capitalism ( and let's be real, that is what they intend to install in Iraq - democracy is just a convenient lie for the rubes ) in a nation that is reeling from war, is a very risky proposition. To act as an imperial force against a people that have fought imperialism for the last few hundred years is an act of folly.

Moreover, this administration does not seem well prepared to undertake the massive reconstruction and organization required to rebuild Iraq and heal it's peoples' hearts. Remember Afghanistan? The president did not when he submitted his budget proposal... but that is a whole other can of worms.

Do not support this stupid war. Wolfowitz, Cheney, Perle, and Rummy have been dreaming of an oportunity to seize Iraq for the past 10 years - this is not about a real threat. This is about the biggest dog on the block pushing out the little dogs to get the best bones.

Slightly off-topic, but: What really stuns me is is what little knowledge (basically zero) these right-wing/republican/rednecks have about history, especially our own. Anybody out there remember an obscure French general from the American Revolution named Lafayette? Seems he helped us out against British tyranny when no one else would. If not for him, we'd be eating tea & crumpets for breakfast everyday instead of coffee & doughnuts, and using funny colored money. I'd say saving their butts in WW II was a debt we owed them. We're about to get into a major war, the economy is tanking, our civil liberties are being taken away, and a bunch of congressmen have nothing better to do than rewrite the Capitol's cafeteria menu and call a press conference about it. Geez, how pathetic! No wonder this country is going down the crapper...

"62% of students at the UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS (yes a college, and probably the most liberal in the state) support a forcible disarmament of Iraq ..." was a statistic cited above.

The only question I had on any of the above posts, anybody know what percentage of college students from the University of Texas have enlisted to serve?

mmm... freedom fries...

peace.

I've just read all of the comments above and need to respond to one very important point: It is possible to be completely and unequivocally opposed to the rush to war against Iraq AND support our troops at the same time. These ideas are not mutually exclusive. After all, what more support could one show for our young soldiers over there than to hope for their safe return BEFORE their lives are needlessly and tragically cut short in the name of pure greed.

You can also support the war - which I do - and be opposed to Daniels' tone and characterization of war opponents, AND be against a woman being fired for privately expressing her opinion.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Nazi and war criminal Hermann Goering being interviewed by a US intelligence officer at Nuremberg in 1946

I read about this on tuesday and sent Charlie an email. I got all all caps response saying, in essence, he had nothing to do with Tamara getting fired and and anyone who said he did is a bald face liar. There were a lot of misspellings in the email. I thought it might not have been real, but now that I see the similar emails from Charlie on Twangzine, it pretty clear was from him. If I was CD, I'd get rid of the PR guy. They say no publicity is bad publicity, but getting fired for an email to a celebrity strikes too close to home for most people. It could happen to anyone, and regardless of Charlie's political views, he comes off as a petty jerk when he very likely had nothing to do with it. The PR guy screwed up.

This is the most acurate account I have read.

http://www.nashvillescene.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?story=This_Week:News:Crying_Wolf

If we attack Iraq, then we shall be, by definition, war criminals. I'd be a lot more convinced that this prospective war was about democracy if we hadn't dropped Afghanistan like a hot potato 20 minutes after the shooting stopped. Has anyone seen our military budget? It's fucking Jabba-the-Hutt sized. We've got enough firepower to turn the whole Middle East into very expensive glass. Meanwhile, for the cost of, what, three $282 million jet fighters we could fund job training and heating assistance programs for the poor? We are being sold an expensive and unnecessary war, and I'm not buying.

In response to "An Open Letter To The Hollywood Bunch" I can only say that it is correct, fundamentally. Take out the fanatical, over-zealous attitude, and his statements are completely valid. Saddam is a straight out murderer - ask anyone you may know from Iraq. He kills his own people, bombs other countries, and is an all around pain in the ass. But hey, that doesn't mean we should get involved, right?

Wrong, it means we need to get involved. It is obvious that does not have friendly inclinations towards the US, and if he is willing to kill his own people, I am willing to guarantee he'd just as soon kill any one of us as he would scratch his head. As for this being part of the war on terrorism, I completely agree. If anything, I am more worried about Saddam funding terrorist organizations and the like. America's veil of infalibility fell with the twin towers, and now we are focus of any terrorist organization out there.

I do see some of you responding about the lack of countries in support of any military solution to this problem, that is if you are even willing to admit it is a problem. So what do you propose? More resolutions? Saddam has ignored the last 10 or so resolutions, but I am positive he'll go for this next one. 11th time is a charm, as they say. I once heard, in all my sixteen years, that there's no reasoning with a mad man, yet the U.N. and several of you still look to diplomatic methods to the Iraq situation. Well, I'd hate to see what you consider a mad man if Saddam doesn't fit in that category for you.

I am quite used to discussing the matter, though. The radical teenagers, looking to rebel against the government, often express their anti-military views in one discussion or another, but for educated, public figures - actors, singers, and the social elite - to express views in the name of peace is just stupid. The so called "war on oil" doesn't suite your PR needs, so why not denounce it and even take a nice, quiet trip to Iraq to hang out with good ol' Saddam. I am not asking for your support, or for you to go blindly down whatever path the government chooses for you, but wake the hell up! If anything - learn from the past! Think pre-WW2, when people begged us to leave Hitler alone. Yeah, that turned out just fine!

It just seems to me that people have forgotten so much in so little time. War is not something I am fond of, but, to quote a great man, "the needs of the many outweighs the needs of a few." We stand on the threshold of the future and we need to make the correct decesion or face falling to our death. That fall is Saddam, and his insanity is the manifestation of our death. Argue that we spend to much money on the war, argue that we just want oil, argue that George Bush Jr. is an idiot - but never question that he won't strike. Money cannot pay for the lives we lost on 9/11, and what is even more terrifying is that you are all opposed to ridding the world of Saddam. How many more tragedies do we need before you start looking at the signs. I used to be against this war myself, but then I started investigating it.

It's a sad day when we look down the barrel of a gun, and pull the trigger. It may be unloaded, but do you really want to take that chance?

Christian LeBrilla
g33kcor3@hotmail.com

Note: Please, feel free to e-mail me.

I'd rather listen to Joan Race.

http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/09/Whoisourenemy.shtml

Geo. Bush is a trigger-happy, arrogant, moron who
thinks the U. S. should tell the rest of the
world how to live and make sure that it does,
even if it means getting the U. S. into another
Vietnam-type war.
Let him lead the charge, not join the Nat. Guards a
as he did in Texas during the Vietnam (So called)
War.

As an employer of "at will" people GAC has every right to get rid of anyone for any reason. My concern for Tamara is that maybe she was borderline incompetant at her job and this incident pushed GAC's opinon of her competance over the edge and they asked her to leave. If Tamara is so good at her job and she knows so many in Music Row she should have another job by now, at more money, and arround those that share her political views. Either that or she was paid too much, wasn't good at her job, caused disruption among other employees, and at least didn't understand that GAC has the right to get rid of any employee that does not have a contract at any time. Tammy has the right to her free speech. She does not have a right to this job. And lawyers have the right to defend them both. The lawyers will win and we, as a society will waste stomach lining and heart muscle ranting for our chosen side.

I am truly amazed at the fervor of the events and especially the commentary I have read regarding the War with Iraq/Charlie Daniels/Tamara Saviano debate. I am also amazed at the ignorance that is being bandied about on all sides of the issue. But, since everyone else is expressing their views publicly, I feel compelled to express my own.

I am torn over whether or not we should go to war in Iraq. Saddam Hussein has shown himself to be as evil as Adolph Hitler (America stood on the sidelines of that conflict until after millions of Jews had been murdered by the Nazis). He has committed heinous crimes against humanity, including genocide, against people in his own country as well as the people of Kuwait. I thought that that was why we originally fought the Gulf War. (I understand the doubt that exists in people's minds about whether George Bush Sr. had alternative motives having to do with oil prices, as well). What I really don't understand is this. General Schwarzkopf has said publicly that we were within hours of occupying Iraq and taking Saddam out of power when Bush, Sr. ordered the cessation of hostilities. My opinion is that we should have finished the job, then.

Now we have spent an insane amount of time and resources trying to negotiate with a man that we fought a war with and were hours away from removing from power. I have to suspect that George W. (or Junior) has a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein and that is why we are about to go to war with Iraq, again, now. It's taken more than ten years to get here. Why is there such an urgency to go to war, now?

Charlie Daniels is certainly entitled to his opinion, no matter how absurdly or inflammatory he chooses to state it. So is Tamara Saviano. If there is a company policy within GAC that states that employees are forbidden from expressing their views when away from work, and to do so would risk disciplinary action, then I guess they do have the right to fire her, but only if she signed an agreement to abide by that policy. My opinion, however, is that they are also at serious risk for being sued by individual employees as well as the ACLU for violating constitutionally guaranteed civil rights. In any 'at will' employment agreement, in order for an employee to be terminated, there must be a legitimate reason for the termination. That's why companies have 'stables' of attorneys to defend them when bone-headed management does something stupid like firing someone for what is called "Unjust Termination", to try to overcome it in litigation, or to settle with the victims of the termination. My opinion is that GAC's decision to terminate Tamara Saviano is unjust. If she were not performing her job satisfactorily, then she should be terminated under the company guidelines for dealing with unsatisfactory performance, not because she disagreed with Charlie Daniels.

I guess the old adage is appropriate here. "Stupidity increases proportionately to emotion."

No one wants war--but we need to support our President!!! Saddam is a threat!! Any normal person can see this!! I applaude President Bush for not being "afraid" of him and for standing up to him. Let's get rid of this fucker once and for all!!!!

Bush Sr. didn't so much call off the forces as not give the go-ahead, as the UN resolution authorizing the use of force precluded it. Of course, that force was considerably more representative of the UN.

Bush Jr. has pretty much discounted the UN this time around (except for the case of REASON quoted inumerable time - violation of UN resolutions). Seems sort of duplicitous to use an organization's proposals as your basis for an action while denying its dissent for that action.

"62% of students at the UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS (yes a college, and probably the most liberal in the state) support a forcible disarmament of Iraq ..."

Without UN support? Hell, even *I* support a forcible disarmament of Iraq - but I don't think we should do it without the UN or a more unified force.

Secondly, I hardly think a college in Bush's home state is representative of the people this war will affect - which is basically the entire world. The US makes up a rather small percentage of the world population. Of that US population, only about 1% hold most of the power and money - and they're calling the shots.

You might compare Hussein to Hitler, but the two situations are so very different. Europe was hardly the hostile, unstable region that the Middle East is.

Hussein is hardly the only man with power and money who would support attacks on America, nor do I think he is the most likely. He is, however, a threat that needs to be neutralized with an effective post-game wrap up. With great power comes great responsibility.

"needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few" By this, I assume you conclude that a preemptive, basically unilateral war on Iraq will bring greater peace and safety to the people of the world?

How many Palestinians have to die before the US removes Sharon's Hitler-like visage from the political landscape? Oh, wait, Israel serves a purpose to US interests in the Middle East... *sweeps broken UN resolutions under the rug*

Why can't we get off this black juice once and for all? Then we'd have no interest in the Middle East. Afganistan has nothing of interest to us - look how quickly we dropped that ball.

When our information is spood-fed by a very few large corporations who hold most all media outlets (as it is), it's hard to form an educated opinion. The horror of war is hidden from our eyes.

Support the troops - keep them out of harm's way. If they go in, support them more. When they come home, support them more. They will have seen things you and I can not imagine.

First of all, I would like to ask the very simple question to all of the morons that might read this. Outside of the slim possibility that you may have once or twice glimpsed it in schooling, how many of you have ACTUALLY EVEN BOTHERED TO READ the simple slip of paper which gives us these freedoms? I am very sure that outside of one or two who are closely related to political or American history would even have the foggiest ideal of what is actually said. Instead what you will do is simple ramble off a "short" version which is always thrown around. Now, I am simple man. I only have a high school education with some courses in gunsmithing and several years military service, but, one thing I did manage to learn along the way was how to read.
The Bill of Rights which was written on Wednesday the fourth of Martch, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine says "Article the third.... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peacefully to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Now, as I read that I think to myself, Tamara Saviano is a private American citizen expressing her private veiw point. I also seem (somehow) to realize that Jones Media Networks/GAC is NOT the Congress. Now seeing that she spoke her veiw point and, maybe i missed that announcement when it was on the news, Congress didn't make any laws in regards of her stupidity then i most be led to the simple conclusion that her freedom of speech was not violated. Atfer all I didn't see anywhere in there were it discussed the private business sector.
Also, use an example situation which is fictional but along the same lines. A minister in a christian church stands up in his Sunday morning service and says that it is alright to cheat on your wife and to steal from others. Do you really think that he will have a job left even before he finishes the sentence? No. I know some of you will saw well that is because he said it at work. Guess again dumbass. If if he said it in the lowest voices in the darkest corner, as long as it was heard he would be gone. Why? Because it is against the beliefs and reputation of his emplorer. Tamara Saviano is basicly the same.
When you interveiw for a job, you are told to sell yourself to the company. The reason being is because if the company does not feel that you will "fit" with their image then they simply will not hire you and that is their right, as long as it is not involving your sex, race, creed, or religion. IF she had worked so long in the business she would easily be able to realize that if she sent an email out with the company letterhead on it would tie herself to the company. Her dumb ass should have been fired, if for nothing more than stupidity.
As for a war with Iraq, the war was started by the United Nations after Iraq invaded Kuwait, it was ended by an AGREEMENT between the United Nations and Iraq. Part of that agreement was that Iraq would disarm (that includes destroying weapons of mass destruction people) and NOT TO TRY TO ADVANCE ANY MORE weapons of mass destruction. Now 12 years later Iraq has finially destroyed a few missiles. OH MY!!!!!! Lets say they are disarmed an all go home, peace is perserved. BULLSHIT!!!!!!!! Iraq only destroyed them because we finally got a president who has a set of balls (which are not currently in some whore's mouth) to do something about it. Iraq never adhered to the terms of the cease fire. Simple process of elimination then leads one to say the war isn't over. It isn't a great debate. They were the terms that Iraq agreed to in order for us to stop fighting and if they agreed to but never upheld then we simple agree to but will not uphold. We have every right to do this and the only shame in any of it is that the United Nations is nothing more than a HUGE WASTE of my tax money (which is what could be used to fix some of the problems). After President Bush's speech on the 17th of March over 30 nations worlwide formally announced that they support the United States, United Kingdom, and Spain. The time i check that makes it an internationally accepted action even if a few pathic nations such as France spoke against. Oh yeah, that's right. France is still trying to save its' own ass by now saying that if we are attacked by weapons of mass destruction then they will be forced to change their position. Yup, another load of bullshit.

Three Pages or Bust

On the first page I will be like Horace
Writing odes and kissing the hands
That feed, clothe, and shelter me.

This fine Villa out near the mountains
Will keep me in line: a small herd of
Cattle and servants to do the work.

I will sip wine and write for the gods, lest
They force me to struggle and
Labor, robbing me of the good life.
On the next page, I will write like Whitman,
Writing odes to the bearded captain,
Slain at point blank: singing songs for myself.

I will sing to the laborers of earth,
Self-publish, because I do not have
The connections of a Horace.

But I have a vision and desire
To let it all come out on the page:
A flower, a thorn, blood from the vein.
On the last page, I will follow in
The ancient wisdom and wise words of
Cuauhtencoztli, pondering a future

That might be lost if we don't defend
Our song from the enemies of
The word: those that will sell what they

Can capitalize on. They will bury
The truth, make myth, and write a
History that is suitable to them.

Luis Cuauhtémoc Berriozábal

charlie checked long ago when his waist passed 60+ inches and sucked the brains out of his cowboy hat. screw him. charlie, pleeease sit your fat hillbilly ass down and shut the fuck up.
p.s. i used to think you were cool, thirty dam years ago...
peace and victory

I experienced WWII through the grade-school eyes and ears of little girl. The enemy was obvious, apparent; and, we learned patriotism first hand. It wasn't until years later, when I became a teacher, that I truly learned about our Constitution and the rights it provides each citizen of this country. Children today are encouraged to understand and appreciate those individual rights. But, now I'm worried! I'm reading and hearing people being classified as unpatriotic for not agreeing with an august power. And THAT scares me. It isn't just about THIS war, it's also about the future. We need to protect the individual's right to dissent. That's what freedom of speech is all about. God save Us from Us. (God bless Tammy Saviano, a person who has conviction; who rose up to the challenge. May she use this experience to bring herself and all Americans to greater things.)

P.S. A question I've asked myself. Where are the checks and balances that were built into the U.S. government? Are they no longer there?

you people make me fucking sick to my stomach. if you dont like this country, get the fuck out. go to france with the other pussies. those of you who denounce our president should get the fuck out too. i am ashamed to call you assholes my american brothers and sisters.
good job charlie daniels, i too will boycott these stupid fucking hollywood idiots.

All around me I see posters that read "Don't attack Iraq." Everytime I do I want to write on it in big red pen "no, let him attack us first" which is exactly what will happen if we do nothing!

WITH WHAT???? He doesn't have them!!!! That's why we're attacking him and not Korea. His army doesn't threaten anyone, the first round of weapons inspectors destroyed the chemical & biological weapons,he has no infrastructure to rebuild the factoris, and there is no connection to al-qaida.

No, of course not, he just has those thousands of chemical suits for nothing. He didn't ask al qaida to fight alongside his troops; they're doing that on their own.

Get real. Al-Qaida is fighting with the Iraqis. Saddam has threatened to use chemical weapons. Saddam has invaded other countries. His army shoots civilians trying to escape cities. Saddam suppports terrorism. President Bush never said we were going after JUST Al-Qaida, but terrorism all over the world. Saddam pays families of suicide bombers $25,000. Now, if that is not supporting terror, I do not know what is.

Vietnam is over. This is a just war. 70% for, 29% against...who is the REAL silent majority?

This is not a justifiable war, an oxymoron if ever there was one. No war is justifiable, despite the volumes of statistical data that presume to legitimate them. The Vietcong were just as brutal to the South Vietnamese as the Baath Party cadres are to the Iraqis. The end result to that conflict was that the Americans who fought them became equally brutal and the Americans who supported them ignored the brutality or attempted to justify it in order to support them. The chain of brutality thereby continues to grow, link by link, as the casual plausibility of military and political atrocities continue to accumulate.

In the end, the Vietcong were supported by the Vietnamese, despite their brutality, and the Vietnamese were supported by the Soviet Union and the Chinese. It's doubtful that the Iraqis can rely upon a similar support, regardless of the widespread Arab sympathy which an American invasion of Iraq has generated. Otherwise, our brilliant political tacticians would never have decided to invade and occupy the country to begin with. The political result presumably will be the conquest of a country barely capable of defending itself against a larger, immeasurbly more powerful nation which intends to appropriate the necessary resources, denominated in dollars, and generate the political support required to win the next election. Thus vindicated by the will of the people, our neo-conservative leadership may well regard themselves as justifiably free to begin the next glorious round of national liberation, until eventually the entire Middle East is one big happy family of Jewish, Christian and Moslem democrats, all singing the same hymns of praise and gratitude to their Lord and Liberator.

Support our troops: impeach the bastards who sent them there.

So, seeing thousands of Iraqis celebrating their freedom on live TV doesn't justify this war. Finding chemical weapons labs "mysteriously" overlooked by the UN doesn't justify this war? Seeing the Iraqis giving hugs and hi-fives to our Marines, and yelling "We very like Bush!" (that's how the guy in Baghdad said it) doesn't give you goosebumps? How about the Iraqis dragging the head of the Saddam statue through the streets, all the while hitting it with their shoes (a very big insult)?

Wake up idiots; Y'all lost, America won, 'nuff said!

The fact that we would win was never in doubt, nor in fact, was it even an issue. The fact that the Iraqis would be better off without Saddam (in their minds or ours) wasn't an issue, although I wouldn't want to put too much faith in their good will toward America and Americans. The issue was: should we initiate this war? Well, that's obviously moot. But it's interesting to note that (at least to date) NO weapons of mass destruction, chemical, nuclear, etc. have been found. Some munitions have been found, certainly. Iraq had an army, and armies have weapons. If Saddam had had these things, don't you think he'd have used them when we were on his soil?

It seems like the recent movable type upgrade has done very little to curb the spambots (see #78), which I believed was the primary objective (yes/no?) :(

I've also noticed that spam concentration is much higher in the wee hours (EST) of the morning. Perhaps it would be more effective if there was comment moderation during these 4-6 wee hours?

Just a thought.

The new MT doesn't directly deal with spam comments, but it removes the linking incentive, so it will take time for the spammers to realize their efforts are for naught. I think it is down, by the way.

I love Charlie Daniels!!!!!! Everything he said was right on. I have been working since I was 15 yrs old and I am 42. When my father was ill they had a illegal immigrant who should have not been in this country in the first place and wasn't suppose to be and had a peety thef charge that we didn't know about and when my daughter went ot go on Cartoon network a bunch of Porn came up I fired the guy the next day.
I tried to get citizen ship legally of course in Austraila and its hard I work In the medical field. It kills me the crap I went through and couldn't get in and any yahoo can here!!!

I was a female firefighter and if Clinton wasn't getting his did sucked in the whitehouse when our troops were bombed in Yemen. Sept.11th wouldn't have happened he had NO balls. I was there November 2001 and it was Horrific!! NYFD Dept were awesome to myself Look what those Bastards did to all those people Get a clue!

It's all you liberal assholes that bring this country down. Charlie Daniels is a great American. He's not afraid to tell it like it is and forget all this politically correct bullshit.

DRP:(No name. Ignorant and a coward)You paint good country folks as rednecks who chew tobacco and live in trailer parks. It this the kind of left wing thinking that will bring our country together.

Nick: (The war will make us less safe?) Tell that to the 3,000 Americans who lost there lives on September 11th. What did your beloved Bill Clinton do to keep us safe? Wake up!

Frost: You say that Tamara got screwed. Was she in the Clinton White House? (Too easy, but I couldn't resist. Lord, I apologize.)

Dirk: Last time I looked there were at least 51% of us in this country. If left up to you liberals this country would be a toilet for everyone to shit on.

God Bless Charlie Daniels and God Bless America. Even you liberals. You sure need it.

caki, you should get a clue, it was long before yemen that the terrorists saw the US rollover. Think Marines in Lebanon under Reagan. Also, who trained Osama in Afghanistan to fight the Russians?

Go Charlie! Tired? Hungry? Out of work? Increased health care got you down?... thank your re-elected politician....

Charlie is old. Charlie is fat. Charlie is a racist. Somebody give Charlie another cheeseburger and tell him he to shut up.