Pearl Jam speaks out on the impale-Bush-mask-at-concert incident:There were close to 12,000 people at the April 1st Denver show. It's possible two dozen left during encore but it was not noticeable amongst the 11,976 who were loudly applauding and enjoying the evening’s music. It just made a better headline to report otherwise. [You'll note the writer doesn't mention this in his review of the show from the day prior. See “Pearl Jam Show Will Make a Great CD” by Mark Brown, Rocky Mountain News. And it is little more than a mention in any of the show reviews.] review, review…
Article comments
26 - mickyboy
Pearl Jam have become musically and societally irrelevant. Their "woe is me, woe is us" angst, both in their music and in their politic, is tired and useless to most people. No one complains about them because no one is listening to their message. I'm from Seattle and even those of us who live here are surprised to find that the band still exists and that Eddie Vedder still pawns himself off as the conscience of a generation!
Unfortunately, the ever vacuous Dixie Chicks are currently in the public eye because they now experience a popularity in the pop/country crossover market, mainly with teen and twenty-something females. As the Dixie Chicks have used their high-profile to publicize their irrational political views, it is more than fair that they become a high-profile target by those consumers and citizens who find their messages repugnant. Freedom of expression is not soley within the purview of so-called artists - the citizenry also has the right to express a reaction through protest, boycott or open displays of disgust.
27 - David Mathis
Two more points that I haven't seen mentioned, yet:
First: location, location, location. PJ would be getting A LOT more flak right now if little Eddie had made his intemperate remarks and display overseas instead of here in the U.S. Granted, they would never get as much grief for this as the Chicks have gotten, but it still would have made a HUGE difference.
Second, the dam broke. Contrary to what someone said here earlier, the Chicks have not had an image as wholesome country girls for a LONG time. It was always generally known that they were left of center in their views, but as fiddler Martie Seidel noted in an interview right after the group became popular, "We know who our audience is." As long as the Chicks kept their politics to themselves, most country fans were willing to let it slide.
Then came the "Fly" CD, with it's romping pre-meditated murder song, "Goodbye Earl", and the hedonistic, gospel-sampling "Sin Wagon". This raised eyebrows, to be sure, and many people complained -- but in the end, the music was just too good for these dubious song choices to have a serious impact on their careers.
Then came word that the Chicks had posed nude for a PETA ad, although they later denied PETA permission to run it (due to record company pressure). By almost anyone's standards, PETA is a far-left group of the first order, especially to a fan base that tends to appreciate the joys of hunting and fishing.
In January, Natalie Maines decided to wade into the antiwar waters for the first time, ripping Toby Keith and his song, "Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue", in an interview with the Los Angeles Times. She called the song "ignorant", said it made country music look bad, and opined that Keith should use more "tact" (as if Maines has any clue about the meaning of the word).
None of these incidents got major press attention, and with their music continuing to be so well received, the group pretty much had a teflon coating. But while record sales were soaring, there was definitely a feeling of underlying ill-will building against the band, a real sense of distrust. So when Ms. Maines opened her big mouth in London and personally insulted the president, that was just the final straw in a something that has been brewing for a while.
It should also be noted that all this talk about how Maines has apologized is meaningless, because the apology was bunk. I read a report just the other day quoting her as stating that all the controversy over her remarks has only made her more glad that she made them. That comment pretty much demonstrates how crass and meaningless her apology was in the first place. You don't brag about being proud of a comment which you are truly sorry you made.
28 - Eric Olsen
Excellent pre-history David, I was only vaguely aware of some of it and hadn't put the pieces together like you did. Thanks very much.
29 - Tony
I think James is onto something - the location of the statement matters. Criticizing the President domestically is expected - that's fine. But ranting in front of an audience in a foreign venue, well, that crosses the line. That is what did it for me.
Regards,
Tony
(who does listen to country)
30 - David Mathis
And here's the latest (from Launch):
"Maines admitted that she told a London concert audience that the group was ashamed that the President is from their home state of Texas, but added, 'It was a joke and it wasn't planned. And it was really funny at the time. It got lots of cheers, and that's what it was meant for. You see the trouble that you can get into if you speak religion or politics. It gets people very upset.'"
Um . . . yeah. It was all just a joke. So tell me Natalie, do you really expect us to believe that s**t? And do you really think everyone is just going to forget about your "joke" now and start buying your records again? Now THAT'S a joke.
31 - plagiarized
I don't remember who said this so I'm not posting under my own name, but I think it's illuminating:
"If Elvis came back from the dead and held a concert, a couple dozen fans would still leave early in hopes of beating the traffic."
Also enlightening: the comment above about Clear Channel Communications using their pervasive power to silence a voice critical of the administration. Not just because CCC is lobbying the FCC for the ability to expand, but also because CCC is owned by a long time ally of the Bush family.
Besides, CCC's airplay probably gave the Dixie Chicks their success in the first place, so it's no surprise that CCC was able to pull the plug on them, and no surprise that they did so considering the circumstances.
32 - Anna Kissed
One of the stupid things about this whole business is that if Eddy had said "USA Uber Alles" or something similar we wouldn't be discussing this now. I guess as Steppenwolf wrote thirty-something years ago "You're free to speak your mind my friend, As long as you agree with me, don't criticize the Fatherland or those who shape your destiny, 'cause if you do.. you'll lose your job, your ma your pa and all the friends you knew, We'll find a way to silence you." The more things change, the more etc etc
33 - David Mathis
Anna Kissed,
Sorry, but your post is pure stupidity. Yes, if lil' Eddie had said something patriotic, then there would be no controversy. And your point would be? We are, after all, Americans. Likewise, there would be very little controversy if he had simply criticized America or the administration in a rational manner. Instead, he chose to engage in an ugly display which violates very basic concepts of respect for our nation and institutions. He's free to do it -- and we are free to criticize him for it.
But let's turn this around for a minute. Despite the carping and bitching coming from your ilk, you would be LEADING the damn boycott if Eddie or Natalie had gotten on stage and used the n-word, or disparaged homosexuals. "Hate speech", you would tell us, must not be tolerated. And yet somehow, even criticizing someone for speaking against the president is a sign of creeping fascism in your eyes. Pathetic.
34 - David Mathis
On a related note, when are numbskulls like "Anna Kissed" going to tire of using and abusing ad hominem Nazi rhetoric as cheap, disposable, all-purpose insults? Bush is Hitler. Cheney is Hitler. Rush Limbaugh is Hitler. Dr. Laura is Hitler. Damn, it's absolutely amazing how, according to people like Anna, we have freakin' Nazis living around every corner!
Personally, it makes me sick to hear it. It cheapens true evil and trivializes the deaths of over 6 million Jews at the hands of Hitler's henchmen. And don't even get me started on how these "peace" freaks embrace neo-Stalinist groups like ANSWER, excuse monsters like Saddam, and tolerate extreme anti-Semitism in their movement in the name of "diversity" and "tolerance". Want to be a Hitler yourself? All you have to do is exercise your First Amendment rights to criticize something stupid a lefty has said. Wham -- welcome to the Nazi Free-Speech Death Squad!
Sheesh. No wonder these wackos are so marginalized.
35 - Tom J.
To David Mathis:
I would argue that squelching debate and bullying citizens into obedience in the name of 'patriotism' violates the "basic concepts of respect for our nation and institutions."
36 - David Mathis
Tom J,
I would argue that what you so carelessly label as "squelching debate" IS debate. Why is it free speech when Eddie Vedder says something stupid, but it's "squelching debate" when someone criticizes him for it? If anything, HE'S squelching debate by not allowing his detractors to join him on stage and enjoy the benefits of access to the microphone.
And "bullying citizens"? Oh, you mean how lefties use Nazi-themed and race-bating rhetoric in an attempt to get anyone to the right of Al Sharpton to shut up? Yeah, I hate that, too. Glad to see that we can agree on one thing.
37 - Tom J
Race-baiting:
"They (Democrats) don’t want Miguel Estrada because he’s Hispanic," Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-MS, said after a White House meeting.
"If you are a conservative and minority, the bar goes up a lot higher," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-PA, said. "This is Clarence Thomas all over again. This is complete discrimination."
Stated Sen. Pete Domenici, R-NM: "I want to say to Democrats ... you don’t have to be afraid. They (Hispanics) are good lawyers and great judges."
By the way: Wasn't it Rush Limbaugh who coined the term "feminazi"?
38 - David Mathis
Tom J.,
You're really stretching here. Taking such quotes completely out of context does not prove your point, nor does it do wonders for your credibility.
1) Lott's and Domenici's comments were based on the well-known fact that, in the political battle for Hispanic votes, Democrats do not want a Republican president to win a coup by nominating the first Hispanic to the second most powerful court in the country. Lott and Domenici were NOT accusing the Dems of racism, just political opportunism.
2) It is a well known fact that black conservatives are routinely called Uncle Toms, "self-haters", and "house n*****s" by black liberals, and to a lesser extent, by white liberals as well. Santorum was responding to exactly the kind of left-wing race-baiting I was complaining about.
This is disingenuousness at its best. We can split hairs over the Rush Limbaugh comment all you want, but I think we all know the difference between an offhand comment like Limbaugh's and calling the president of the United States a Nazi. Much the same difference as making a crack about CNN being the "Communist News Network", and calling Hillary Clinton a Communist. The first statement is fine with most people, the second is unacceptable.
By the way, I haven't noticed too many pro-war rallies featuring pictures of Jesse Jackson or Howard Dean with Hitler mustaches . . . yet there are plenty of antiwar kooks willing to call Bush and Blair Nazis while not criticizing Saddam at all. Hmmm . . . I know which side I would rather defend here.
39 - Tom J.
So offhand comments like "feminazi" do not cheapen true evil and trivialize the deaths of over 6 million Jews?
I saw a picture today of a young Iraqi boy who had both of his arms blown off by an errant bomb. If President Bush had decided not to pursue this war of aggression, that boy would have been able to keep his arms.
President Bush is directly responsible for what happened to him. I won't defend Saddam Hussein, but I wouldn't be so quick to defend President Bush either, if I were you.
40 - David Mathis
Tom J.,
Thanks to the efforts of U.S. and British forces, nearly 150 children were released from a children's prison today in Baghdad. The conditions in such prisons are so bad that even notorious Saddam apologist and possible child molester Scott Ritter has said that they were beyond horrible. Millions more Iraqis are now free of Saddam's brutal regime, a regime which just two days ago was responsible for dousing children as young as four with gasoline and setting them on fire in front of their parents. If you want to blame the fate of the armless little boy on Bush, that's fine -- as long as you give him proper credit for the millions more he is freeing. Not that you will, of course. This would require that you not only think, but assume a position of basic fairness and level-headedness that is evidently beyond the reach of most in the "peace" movement. Which leads us back to how you can claim with a straight face that people exercising their First Amendment rights are somehow guilty of attempted censorship.
If it were up to you, that little boy might still have his arms, but for how long would he even continue to breathe under Saddam? Your position is simply untenable and immoral.
41 - Eric Olsen
Tom J, it's absurd to blame Bush for the armless Iraqi boy: war kills and wounds and maims and there are accidents. The war is right and necessary, the casualties are regrettable but inevitable. Saddam "caused" this war not Bush.
42 - Bob Neil
David, I agree with you 110%. Thanks for saying what you say better than I ever could. You handle the other side(people like anna and tom j) of this debate with ease. Keep up the good work!
43 - Eddgra Fallin
Yeah, nice try there David, but you're pretty much wasting your time even trying to argue with morons like this Tom guy. Guys like him will say pretty much anything in the way of an argument, with no regard whatsoever to whether or not it makes any sense. It's like trying to convince a schizo that no one is out to get him - all you end up doing is convincing him that you're in on the conspiracy, too. If I were you, I wouldn't waste any more of my time with him; just let this loser go back to reading The Village Voice and praying for another Vietnam. I'm sure he's already plenty disappointed that we haven't killed a million Iraqi civilians, yet. Probably why he's in such a foul mood.
44 - Jonah Goldberg
This is a good day.
Iraqis are cheering in the streets.
The Minister of Information is dressed like a woman in the back of a chicken truck barrelling for the Syrian border, explaining to the flock that the infidel invaders are being slaughtered in the desert.
Jacques Chirac snorted his cafe au lait through his nose when he turned on CNN this morning. He turned to al Jazeera, but there were still Iraqis dancing in the streets.
Janeane Garafolo is shopping for knee pads because she promised to crawl on broken glass to Fox News and apologize if this happened. She'll weasel out, but that's okay because Iraqis are beating statues of Saddam with their shoes.
The wobbly hawks like Josh Marshall are wondering why they switched teams in the third quarter. Maureen Dowd still doesn't get it, but it takes more than a war to make her understand. But that's okay because kids have been released from the Tyke Gulag -- and the gang at the Nation need to come up with a reason why that's a bad thing.
Antiwar protestors are circling their picnic blankets and fingering the dregs of their trail mix bags, wondering what to do next like dogs whose food bowl's been moved. They'll figure something out, alas. But they'll have to explain how sanctions and inspections would have resulted in Iraqis cheering in the streets.
The war isn't over, of course. Our troops who've made us all so proud are still in harms way. Tikrit must be deloused. Weapons must be found. And the really hard work of making Iraq a decent country must still get underway. But you can't take away from the fact that today is a very good day.
45 - Eric Olsen
Jonah, nice to hear from you: we must take a moment to appreciate our satisfactions in life when they all too infrequently appear. It is a good day and I have great pride in our spirit, determination, and sheer efficacy. We can do shit when we put our minds to it - the validation from Iraqis is sweet icing on the cake.
I have been trying to tread a thin line between apprehension and triumphalism, but will take some time to enjoy the latter today.
46 - Ethan Scarl
Glenn Reynolds has posted an excellent comment this morning over at Instapundit:
"Fortunately for the Iraqi people, all those folks who just a few weeks ago were demonstrating in 'solidarity' with them were quite properly ignored. And within minutes, they'll have changed the subject to something else and will be acting as if they were never colossally, utterly, unredeemably wrong about this.
But they were, and a lot of people will remember."
Yep, but you can count on them to furiously try and change the subject (while continuing to pray that things will go pear-shaped in Iraq and turn into a quagmire after all). Count on it. Next thing you know, you will see Janeane Garafolo on TV saying, "Yes, yes, we won the war, but what about the plight of the homeless right here in this country? How can we talk about 'freedom' for Iraqis when our own people are suffering at the hands of an unjust society?" Blah, blah, blah.
47 - Eric Olsen
"Yes, but...." is the rallying cry of the eternally pessimistic.
48 - Tom J.
I think that this war poses some interesting philosophical questions. For instance, is an endeavor truly virtuous if one were to inadvertently murder one innocent person while rescuing five others?
Utilitarianists such as yourselves would argue that if the war were, on balance, positive, then it was all worthwhile. Arriving at such a conclusion, however, assumes that it is possible to attach a specific, measurable value to human life. I personally feel that the value all human life is equally immeasurable, so it is impossible to make such a calculation.
Nevertheless, it probably can be argued that civilian casualties are acceptable in a war of self-defense. Since this is a "war of choice" (as stated by George F. Will in his column "Conservatism's Moment of Truth") we Americans cannot also make the claim that this is a war of self-defense. A true war of self-defense implies a "war of NO choice". Taking all of this into account, in my view the civilian casualties in Iraq are absolutely unacceptable.
49 - David Mathis
Tom,
Evidently, the thousands of Iraqis dancing in the streets today and praising Bush do not share your opinion.
Once again, the intellectual and moral dishonesty of the left is simply astounding -- lots of bitching and whining, but no solutions. Michael Moore has also complained about civilian casualties and has said that if the Iraqi people want to replace their leader, they should do it themselves. Putting aside for a moment that 1) villagers with pitchforks stand zero chance against tanks and helicopter gunships, and 2) they already tried this once and failed, how many more civilians would die in such a civil war compared to the relatively small number of civilian casualties from this conflict? So Moore's position is not so much designed to protect Iraqi civilians as it is to simply bitch about America. Some on the left have defended and augmented this position by suggesting that we should have supported the failed Shia uprising in 1991; this despite the fact that these same people lambaste our government for every other incident in history where we have provided arms to rebel groups.
Your position is both arrogant and immoral. Yes, this is a war of choice -- at least in terms of its timing -- but it is also a war of defense. But since the left cares nothing about defending our nation and wants only to talk about the effects of war on the civilian population, defenders of the war have said fine, let's debate it on that issue alone. Even on that very narrow issue, however, you still don't have a case because the Iraqi citizens are clearly better off being liberated by us than continuing to live under Saddam's boot. The antiwar movement is nothing more than a collection of morally-obtuse hand-wringers, more concerned with maintaining their ideological purity than they are with doing what is right.
50 - Eddgra Fallin
From Prof. Robert P. George of Princeton (via Ramesh Ponnuru of NRO):
When tyrants tremble, sick with fear,
And hear their death knell ringing;
When friends rejoice both far and near,
How can I keep from singing?'
--19th century Quaker hymn revived by lefty singer Pete Seeger in the 1960's
Gee, haven't heard Pete or other Leftists singing today. Wonder why?
51 - Tim Blair
I SHOULDN'T be so happy. After all, I'm a right-wing deathbeast, and the end (or near end) of a war should upset me, because we conservatives lust for war all the time. Except when we have to fight it ourselves, of course. Being chickenhawks and all.
And the toppling of a fascist dictator should have me all weepy and nostalgic for Hitler. Because I'm a fascist, according to much of the mail I receive.
Those Iraqis dancing in the streets? That should really piss me off, because I want to oppress them and steal their oil. Why are they even able to dance? I was promised 500,000 murders, yet thus far only 1,000 or so innocents have died.
So why am I so damn happy? I really can't explain.
I'd go and ask some oppression-hating anti-fascist peace activists about it, but for some reason they're all incredibly depressed.
52 - Eric Olsen
Great to hear from you Tim, the big boys are checking in today. It is certainly a day for slightly attenuated celebration and I am most satisfied with that gaping hole in the ground near that restaurant in Baghdad
53 - Steve Rhodes
I love it when people speak for me. I'm not depressed.
Just because I oppose the war doesn't mean I'm not happy that Hussein is no longer in power.
And as far as the left "lambast[ing] our government for every other incident in history where we have provided arms to rebel groups."
I'm sure some on the left who aren't pacificsts would have been happy if the US had supplied arms to the FMLN in El Salvador, but the the government was arming the military and death squads there. Or the ANC in South Africa (though the most effective resistance there was non-violent).
54 - Tom J.
I'm sure I will be blasted for this, but here goes:
First of all, didn't we go down this road already with Iran? Also, Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982 began with the best of intentions and ended very badly. I just think we should stay out of that part of the world and let those people sort out their own problems. It remains to be seen how all of this will play out. Clearly, invading Iraq to dispose of Saddam Hussein was good for the Iraqi people in the short run. (At least for those who weren't killed or injured by errant bombs.) I don't think anyone disputes that. But will it be good for America's long term strategic interests? Well, I suppose that all depends on how the Arab/Muslim community perceives things.
There is a long, ugly history of colonization in that part of the world, so it's probably understandable that they might be a bit suspicious about the real intentions of the Bush Administration. Furthermore, because the liberation of the Iraqi people was brought about by an unprovoked invasion of a foreign (non-Muslim) army there is a strong possibility that it will not be perceived as authentic or legitimate. It may also deepen the sense of humiliation that permeates much of the Arab/Muslim world and, it should be noted, gave birth to the 9/11 hijackers. If the Iraqi National Congress is regarded as a puppet government of the United States, then I'm afraid it may go the way of Mohammed Reza Pahlavi.
I think that's what Michael Moore was getting at.
"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible."
George Washington's farewell address, 1796
55 - Eric Olsen
Tom, I won't blast you, your concerns are legitmate and thoughtful, but we will not install a Shah - with his hated secret police - this time around. I believe we can learn from our mistakes.
56 - David Mathis
Tom,
Well, I will have to say that your latest post was much more lucid than some of your previous efforts. No, you won't get blasted (at least by me), but I do disagree with your assessment. Unlike during the Cold War, I believe that current U.S. policy (no matter who is in the White House) is decidedly geared toward encouraging TRUE democracy, not phony puppet governments. If the Iraqis will listen to us and give us some trust and patience, they have a very good chance to build something special for themselves.
Now I am under no illusions that this effort will be easy, or even successful. If the Iraqis succumb to the unfortunate Arab tendency to allow radicals to whip them into a paranoia-driven rage, then things could get very ugly very fast. And if that happens, we will likely have no choice but to pull out and leave them to their craziness. That would be a real shame for everyone, especially the Iraqis themselves.
You give Michael Moore far too much credit, Tom. You seem to think that he actually had a point to make, other than just making noise. Moore is a self-indulgent, self-promoting, self-important provocateur, a rebel with neither a cause nor a clue, a limousine lefty of the first order. Truth and consistency are not part of his act. I can promise you that if Bush had proposed merely helping the Iraqi resistance rather than going to war using U.S. troops, Moore and his ilk would be dead-set against that, too. After all, it's guys like Moore who have spent the last ten years accusing the U.S. of genocide for supporting sanctions against Iraq, when the fault for both the sanctions and the misappropriation of "food-for-oil" money lies solely with Saddam.
Yes, I am gloating today, and for good reason -- so many of the nightmare scenarios of the left have proved so completely and utterly false that it's really hilarious. Didn't Garafolo claim that Iraqis would "never" dance in the streets celebrating Saddam's downfall? Wasn't Scott Ritter proclaiming as recently as two days ago that the allies had lost the war? Even today, I have visited some left-wing web sites where it is being claimed that the Baghdad celebrations were staged by the "corporate media," or that the celebrating Iraqis were paid to dance in the streets by the Bush administration. Pure lunacy.
The smirk on my face today does not mean that I think there are no hard days ahead, however. But even if it inevitably does not work out, we still did the right thing. By getting rid of Saddam and his terrible weapons, and at least giving the Iraqi people the chance to govern themselves, we are on the side of the angels here.
Funny you should mention that George Washington quote, by the way. It was cited quite often in 1999 by isolationist conservatives who felt we had no business stopping the genocide in Kosovo. After all, if they didn't like being raped and slaughtered, they could have just taken out Milosevic themselves. Sound familiar?
57 - Eddgra Fallin
From Kathryn Jean Lopez at NRO:
Profiles in Courage
The House voted 414-0 last night on a resolution "Stating the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the systematic human rights violations in Cuba committed by the Castro regime; calling for the immediate release of all political prisoners and supporting free elections for Cuba." The vote was 414-0.
11 Voted "present":
Frank Ballance
John Conyers
Jesse Jackson Jr.
Sheila Jackson-Lee
Eddie Bernice Johnson
Carolyn Kilpatrick
Barbara Lee
Ron Paul
Bobby Rush
Maxine Waters
Albert Wynn
Is it a shock to anyone that the pro-Castro members of Congress are also by and large the ones who refused to vote for the resolution supporting the troops and who have been the most vocal antiwar voices in Congress?
58 - Tom J.
Eric and David:
Thanks for the input.
Needless to say, I'm a bit skeptical about this venture because it has become pretty clear to me that we Americans are NOT welcome in the Muslim world--just as we would not welcome foreign armies in our homeland. Yet, our leaders do not seem to get the message. On three different occasions (Beirut-1983, Mogadishu-1993, Khobar Towers-1996) U.S. troops were slaughtered by unhappy locals. I just think we're in for more of the same treatment. It is a thankless job to be sure, and our servicemen are just sitting ducks out there.
Maybe this will all work out in the end, but history does not support that claim in my opinion. For the most part, democracies do not flourish in nations whose primary source of income is oil. (I mean, why bother to develop a dynamic economy based on strong democratic principles when you can just pull that liquid gold out of the ground and sell it to the rest of the world for huge sums of money and be done with it?) Furthermore, it seems to me that when we avoid political entanglements with Muslim countries, their people tend to gravitate toward us. Look at Iran, for instance. It is probably the most pro-American country (save Israel) in the Middle East and we have zero ties to their government.
Saddam Hussein was a real monster, no doubt about it. And the Iraqi people deserve to be free. But, in my opinion, we should have waited for the United Nations, or the Arab League, or NATO--or whoever--to come to us and say, "Hey, we can't take care of this problem on our own and we need your help." It was a huge mistake to do this against the will of the international community, even if it was the right thing to do. We're going to pay for it down the road I'm sure.
If President Bush's motives are truly as altruistic as he claims, then I wish him/us the best of luck. If they are not, or if the Arab/Muslim community perceives they are not, then we are in for a bumpy ride.
59 - David Mathis
Tom,
You make some good points, but your information seems to be a little skewed. For instance, the terrorist attacks you described were not carried out by "locals," but by terrorist organizations. To say that "locals" were responsible makes it sound as if some guys sitting around a bar (or a mosque) one night said, "Boys, I think we need to go blow up some Americans." That's not what happened.
As for avoiding entanglements with Arab countries, I would agree wholeheartedly with you if this war were just about liberating Iraq, but it's not. Our primary reason for being there is to eliminate a direct threat to our nation in the form of Saddam and his WMD. The stuff about introducing democracy into the Persian Gulf and freeing the Iraqis from oppression are just happy byproducts. If we could just keep the Arab world at arm's length until they grow up and decide they want better relationships with us, that would be fine with me, but Saddam has forced our hand in this instance.
Your description of Iran is only half right, at best. Yes, the people of Iran tend to have a more positive view of the U.S., but the Muslim clerics who still dominate the country politically are some of the biggest supporters of terrorism in the world. If the Iranian government were really so concerned about having good relationships with us, they wouldn't by trying like hell to build a nuclear bomb right now. One more thing to keep in mind about Iran: they may be Muslims, but they are not Arabs (most of them anyway). That makes a HUGE difference.
Your argument that we should have waited for the U.N. or the Arab League to come ask us for help is pretty naive. First of all, it completely ignores the main point of the invasion: the need to get rid of Saddam's WMD. But even ignoring that fact, it's still not a good argument. We have been waiting twelve years, and no one but us and Britain has lifted a finger to get rid of Saddam. Do you really think the Arab League would ever in a million years ask "infidels" to invade a fellow Arab country, especially when most of its member states are autocracies unenamored by the prospect of a democratic Iraq? The proverbial blizzard in Hell would come first, I can promise you. Granted, I would not be for this war if it were not for the WMD situation; but if that were the case, the choice would not be should we go in or wait for someone to ask us. The choice would be should we go in, or not go in, because we sure as hell would never be asked.
I fully believe that our motives are just and altruistic. The problem is that the state-run media outlets in the Arab world are almost certain to continue their practices of selectively reporting the news in the worst light possible, and printing slanders, lies, and conspiracy theories as fact. This will whip up extremist sentiment and cause a flood of "martyrs" to head toward Iraq. All it will take at that point is one false move by U.S. forces -- one accidental shooting, one pedestrian run over by a Humvee -- and the whole place will blow up. I just hope we've gotten rid of all the WMD before we have to get the hell out of there.
You have to keep in mind that Arabs are largely infected with a group form of schizophrenia. As Jonah Goldberg highlighted in his excellent column from a couple of weeks ago, Arabs will believe almost any kind of ridiculous story that you can come up with as long as it involves Jews. Every time Yasser Arafat does anything the Palestinian street doesn't like, the rumor starts to go around that he's actually a closet Jew -- and those idiots believe it! Even now, the theory is being circulated among many Arabs that the real reason Baghdad fell so quickly is because Saddam was actually a secret Zionist puppet whose job it was to hand over Babylon to the infidels and humiliate Islam. With people this insane, it should come as a shock whenever they actually behave rationally.
You are right that an oil-dominated economy is a bad thing (just look at Venezuela for proof), but maybe Iraq's river system and the resulting agricultural possibilities, plus their relatively well-educated population will give them a better chance at success, despite the kookiness of the region. I certainly hope and pray that it is so.
60 - Ted
The actions of both are deplorable and need to be punished. These idiots have freedoms because of the actions of heros like our soldiers and President.
I hope both organizations fail and the complaining whining, whining, and spoiled Natalie and Eddie Fender get what they have coming!
61 - BOB
Pearl Jam do things on there own terms. No videos, little press, and still they can sell plenty of records and debut in the top 5 of Billboard. Just because you don't hear of them any more, doesn't mean there still not making kick ass music. They set billboard records just three years ago with there live bootlegs debuting on the top 200, the most any at once. Eddie Vedder is anti-bush, and really, who gives a fuck about the Dixie Chicks?
62 - Tom
What it boils down to is this when it comes to pearl jam class and morales are not something we expect , we at leat thought the Dixie Chicks had some.
63 - Candace
eddie vedder a 4 year old? LOL , you know nothing! Pearl Jam are still a mega band with music that will stand the test of time. Eddie Vedder is a true rock star that will go down as one of the best. His opinion is just that, and it is his right to share it with his audience.
As for the Dixie Chicks, well, i never really listened to them anyway. Even though i am from Alabama, i guess i would say "I'm ashamed the Dixie chicks, carry the name Dixie" LOL!
Candace
64 - Candace
You can visit my pearl Jam message board called Save You located at
http://eddieismine.proboards13.com/.
Candace
65 - OLDEN
GREAT JOB PEARL JAM AND DIXIE CHICKS!! I am now a fan for life!! Someone needs to stand up to this court selected war mongering CHIKENHAWK AWOL MORON IDIOT SO-CALLED PRESIDENT!! AMERICANS ARE SO DAMNED BRAINWASHED!! iT DOESN'T TAKE A ROCKET SCIENTIST TO SEE THAT 911 WAS A INSIDE JOB AND A PHONY TERRORIST ATTACK!! JUST ASK ALL THOSE STOCKHOLDERS WHO OWNED AMERICAN AND UNITED STOCK HOW THEY KNEW TO BET THAT THE STOCK WOULD TAKE A NOSE DIVE JUST 2 DAYS BEFORE THE SEPTEMBER 11TH ATTACKS!! ALL THESE CLOWNS ARE JUST TRYING TO MASS MANIPULATE PEOPLE IN TO ACCEPTING A 1 WORLD GOVERNMENT USING THE OLDEST FORM OF CONTROL .......FEAR!!
66 - Dave
I disagree with that last comment, I have mixed feelings about the war. As for what happened with the dixie chicks being so because it was in London? GET REAL! We are not anti-American in England, but many of us are anti-Bush. I know people who are for, against and have mixed feelings about the war - none of them like Bush, and I live in England and am actually from London myself. I disagree about Eddie's behaviour being immature but then I feel the same way about his "pro-choice" act so I can understand that point of view even if I disagree with it. Virtually no-one in the anti-war movement likes Saddam Hussein either. Also abortion=left wing? GET REAL! This post is to various people by the way...
67 - Eric Olsen
Olden is delusional, I am not comforted by the number of those who will believe any conspiracy theory that comes along if it fits their worldview.
Thanks for the thoughts and clarifications, Dave. I understand the difference between being anti-American and anti-Bush.
68 - Eddie Dixie Sluit Vedder
Pearl Jam sucks and always have. You hate Bush and not america. Well now all of you far left freaks know how bad the right hated Clinton and his immorality and mix of appeasement of evil and war like vengeance attacks on 5 countries. All the useless entertainment idiots backed Clinton's war mongering. You are nothing but a bunch of bigoted, hypocritical haters.
69 - Eddie Dixie Slut Vedder
Pearl Jam sucks and always have. You hate Bush and not america. Well now all of you far left freaks know how bad the right hated Clinton and his immorality and mix of appeasement of evil and war like vengeance attacks on 5 countries. All the useless entertainment idiots backed Clinton's war mongering. You are nothing but a bunch of bigoted, hypocritical haters.
70 - George
Eddie V.'s position supporting J. Kerry suck big time. You're mixing water and oil, art and politic.
Hoping your future CD disgust me
sincerely
George
71 - Tim
Honestly, I dont see what the fight is about. The reason the Dixie Chicks are hated is because there saying the Iraq War is a scam to a load of rednecks who blindly follow a guy who would sell the country for an oil well. Meanwhile Pearl Jam is isnt being hated by the public because first off there agreeing with 71% of public and its that 71% that goes to there concerts. Honestly I think both of the bands are good. While demolishing a mask of the president on-stage is a little over the top, not because of the political statement but because it makes all anti-bushers look like a group of angry punks. America is just sick of Bush's shit. When you do the math were paying $30 per person a week on the war, and thats without dividing it out because plenty of americans are too young, old, poor, or rich to pay for it. And where is this money going? If you look at Walter Reed it cant be going to Iraq. Maybe we should ask the bastards at HALIBURTON. After all there the ones charging $24 for a 6 pack of coca-cola to the army. And ive noticed a lot of u attacking Eddie & co for giving an 'anti-patriotic' statement for every damn scandal on good ol George & Dick seem to wind up in. And what did Clinton do? He reduced poverty and the national debt. Ow but he got a blow job!!! I'm sorry I dont think he got the no oral sex allowed memo. I cant wait to see someone with integrity in the white house in '08. Just please o' please stop saying if you hate the president you hate democracy. The central part of a democracy is "the people shall lead, democracy is the will of the people." and Bush fights it, he's a trator and maybe even a tyrant. When you bring America into a war they dont want your flat out betraying them. If the somebody impaled a mask of Stalin or Castro, that would be just fine. So why cant we do that to the tyrant Bush? America dosnt love him, yet he tortures foreigners without a trial, invades our privacy, declares wars on harmless countries, lets true villans go free, and values loyalty over compitence! Why isnt this immoral? Clinton got blown and lied about it. Bush killed thousands and let our heroes wrote in Walter Reed, and lied about it! He's up there next to Stalin, Hitler, Bin Laden, Hussein (Americas ex boyfriend), and Muo. But are we calling him a dictator? No were to busy assaulting Chavez because he's building hospitals and schools with money that bush would rather spend on an oil well!