Dixie Chick Natalie Maines told her audience "Just so you know, we're ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas."
On stage in London on Monday [03-10-03], Dixie Chick Natalie Maines told her audience "Just so you know, we're ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas."…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - Don
What country do you live in, Edgar? The one I live in has a bill of rights. Natalie is to be commended for exercising her rights. After all, soldiers didn't die to prevent us from speeking freely.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong," Roosevelt said, "is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
Theodore Roosevelt, 1918
77 - Don
And another, Edgar:
Congressman Lincoln voted to censure the president in 1848--while the war against Mexico still raged. He contended that the president's justification for war was "from beginning to end the sheerest deception."
Too bad Abraham Lincoln wasn't shot for treason, eh?
78 - Al Barger
Lincoln shot for treason? I could see that.
79 - mike
I do not understand how people can still be against the war with Iraq. Have you not been paying attention to the news? Have you not seen the 12 year old and younger kids being freed from prison because they wouldn't join Saddams army. Have you not seen the torture chambers that have been found. Have you not heard the true accounts of torture inflicted upon olympic athletes and people who chose to speak out against Saddam. We may not have found conclusive evidence of weapons of mass destruction YET, but we have found other attrocities that are reminiscent of Hitlers iron fisted reign. The fact that certain celebrities continue to speak against the war, in the face of all the horrible things that are being uncovered in Iraq, shows how out of touch they are with reality. I wonder if they are just concerened with their pocket books. During a war people would be less likely to spend their money frivolously on entertainment than they would in a time of no war. Celebrities can bitch and moan all they want about how unamerican it is for their "art" to be boycotted for expressing their right of free speech, but I say we have the equal right to express our right to choose not to line their bank accounts because of our disagreement with their view. The right of free speech and free expression goes both ways. Certain celebrities just seem to think that their opinions are more just and important than the common person.
- A proud American using his right of free speech
80 - mike
I read even more of the comments posted here and am continually amazed at the lack of common sense. Yes Natalie Maines expressed her right of free speech, I support that. No one said what she did was a crime. What is occuring is a large segment of the population is choosing to express their right of free speech and free expression by disagreeing with her. The boycotted sales and album play are one of the few ways your "regular joe" can be assured the Dixie Chicks hear our opinion. We don't have the luxury of holding a microphone in front of thousands of people to express our opinions. We don't have the luxury of having TV interviewers at our beck and call. If she is willing to run off at the mouth, in a foreign country, than she should expect others to disagree with her and express their right of free speech in the only way she will hear. Boycotting the Dixie Chicks, and other celebrities (ie Martin Shean, George Clooney, Julia Roberts etc., etc.) is not unamerican, it is our American right to free speech and free expression.
-A proud American expressing his right of free speech...again.
81 - Don
Sure, terrible things happened in Iraq. Try doing an internet search on Myanmar (formerly Burma). It's far worse there. But not only are we not invading, we don't care. Millions of Africans dying from AIDS and we deny them American drugs. Yes, I am against the war. This could have been dealt with without a war. Over 2000 Iragi civilians died in the invasion. Somehow, I don't think that their families are celebrating.
I've not heard Natalie or any other celebrity complain about boycotts. Death threats to them and thier parents (and even grandparents) is another story. And besides, conservative boycotts are the best sales device in this country. "Home" is still the number one country album. 59 of 64 concerts are sold out. What these celebrities complain about are gutless executives who knuckle under to conservative threats, despite the demonstrable ineffectiveness of these so-called "boycotts".
82 - mike
First let me say that the problems in Myanmar are horrendous, but this country can do only so much for the entire world. If we don't invade and take certain leaders (ie Milosovich, or the leadership in Myanmar) we are said to be turning our backs, or that we don't care. We invaded Iraq to take Saddam and his cronies and we are called brutes, murderers and any other bull shit term you can think of. Yes their are other countries that could use our help in ridding their brutal leaders but we need to focus first on direct threats to our country, meaning Iraq. I am absolutely pissed off at most of the worl community. 99% of this planet never hesitates to put us down and call for death to all Americans, but the instant they need something suddenly we are their best firend.
2000 iraqi civilians deaths are without a doubt a terrrible thing. What about the several million Iraqi murders perpetrated by Saddam and his cohorts? I have a feeling almost any Iraqi in their right mind would say in a few years that 2000 lives compared to several million lives was worth it. Don't get me wrong I wish their could have been no civilian casualities, but that is what happens in war. I believe this country did everything immaginable to prevent the deaths of the innocent. Unfortunately innocent people did die. Innocenet people also died on September 11 and this country needs to do everything in its power to prevent that from happening again. I wish someone could me a reasonable idea of how we could have dealt with Saddam in a way other than war. What do you people think has been going on the past 12-13 years? We have tried working with the UN to handle the Iraqi situation and you see where that got us. NOWHERE. Several outspoken countries against this war are turning out to have been "in bed" with Saddam for their own financial reasons. No wonder diplomacy didn't get anywhere.
Yes celebrities are bitching about boycotts of their "art". They calling these boycotts anti-American because they feel we are hindering their right of free speech. They can say anything they want, but they should realize that there may be repercussions from those who don't agree with them. It is our own right to respond to their opinions by choosing not to support them.
83 - don
You almost had a point - unitil you mentioned sep 11th. Any mention of 9/11 in reference to Iraq means that you bought bush's bridge. It's a lie. There is no connection.
A reasonable way to deal with Hussein? France had a proposal which the administration dismissed, rudely. Hundreds more inspectors (By 1998, U.N. inspectors had eliminated 90-95 percent of Iraq's ability to produce or use chemical and biological weapons. Inspectors estroyed 100 percent of the factories that produced these weapons and 100 percent of the equipment needed to make them. They eliminated nearly all existing weapons and the long-range missiles designed to carry them. In 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency certified that Iraq no longer had a viable nuclear weapons program.) These inspectors would gave be escorted by UN soldiers. The Iraqi people would have seen the UN troops. The regime would've had to adapt - their control would've slipped away. And if it didn't work, war was still an option. The war proved that Iraq wasn't a threat to any of it's neighbors. And as they didn't use WMD against us, even knowing that they faced certain defeat, and as we still haven't found any of these alleged (and they are merely alleged) WMD, saying that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US is, to say the least, a less than convincing assertion.
Remember, we went there to eliminate an imminent threat. The liberation of the Iraqi people makes good press, and is undoubtedly a good thing, but we have committed war crimes in achieving this liberation. (4 large bombs knowingly aimed at a residention neighborhood. Cluster bombs used in civilian areas. Infrastucted targeted and destroyed. Iraqi TV targeted and destroyed).
Having said that, I want you to know that I am a veteran. I support our troops. I have a friend over there and a nephew who just enlisted.
84 - Julia
As Americans we have the right to free speech. You can shout for the whole world to hear. However, when you use a very public forum to express your personal views you open your self up to a public response. Miss Natalie was playing to the crowd with her remarks in the UK. She did not factor in that her sentiments might not be appreciated in her home country. Rest assured that her handlers are working around the clock to turn this uproar into sales. She is not a hero or a victim. She is a commodity. Unfortunately for her, her shelf life may have expired. She was never the best singer in country music or the best performer. However, she had charisma and was fun to watch. People thought she was kind of cute and they liked her. Now the public knows her a little better and fairly large portion of it doesn't like her so much. Don't cry a river for Natalie. She just needs to realize that the sun doesn't rise and set on her cute little chunky behind. So long as you were entertaining Natalie we watched, listened and purchased. Now you are whiny and boring. Go away and give the next "big thing" a chance.
85 - Al Barger
Yo, Don back up in comment #83: "You almost had a point - unitil you mentioned sep 11th. Any mention of 9/11 in reference to Iraq means that you bought bush's bridge. It's a lie. There is no connection."
You may wish to CHECK THIS OUT and then re-consider. If actual evidence on the ground means anything to you- if you have any intellectual integrity, you will then change your opinion.
86 - Mike
Anyone who doesn't think there is an Iraq - Al Qaeda link is blind, and cynical simply because they don't like President Bush. You personally may not have seen the evidence of this connection, but I am more inclined to believe our President than Saddam or any al-qaeda leader. I mentioned Sept. 11, not trying to make a connection between that fateful day and Iraq, but simply to say that something worse is, at some point, going to happen. With Saddams said hatred of this country and everything it stands for we could not afford to go another 5-10 years of "peaceful resolution talks" with him and his leadership. You say that we should have tried more diplomacy or Frances' "solution" and later on possibley used the war solution makes me wonder. What if we would have given those options a try for say 1-3 years or more. When would we have actually waited long enough. Lets also say that nothing positive with actual substance came out of more diplomacy. Would you then have supported the war. I have a hard time thinking you would or anyone else who thinks we invaded too soon. 12-13 years seems like a little too long of a wait, not too soon. Saddam knew what was to happen if he did not comply with the UN resolutions set forth after the Gulf War. He had more than enough time to comply and show that he was willing to work with the UN (side bar - what use were the UN resolutions if he was able to comply/not comply whenever he wanted?). He did not comply so we went in to make him comply. How can you fight "legally" when you are fighting against something so evil that they PURPOSLEY kill innocent people to make their so called point. You can't! As I said earlier...we did cause civilian casualties, but I would bet my life that they were completely unintentional. When war is your last option, and this was the last option, innocent people will die. That is a given unless the war is fought out in a uninhabited desert. I will be listening extremely hard to all you nay-sayers who are so convinced that we will not find any weapons of mass destruction when we find them. Saddam has had about 10 years to hide them so of course we're not going to find them in a mere several weeks. I want to see the 180 everyone pulls when we start finding them. Of course the anti-Bush people could always say that Saddam wasn't really going to use them on us, they wouldn't really cause that much damage, the chemicals wouldn't physically affect me because it would happen to someone else and so on and so on. No matter how much good comes out of this war and no matter how much safer we as a country and member of a world community are you nay-sayers will always say we shouldn't have done it. 5-10 years from now, if not sooner, the world will see the service that our brave men and women have done for them in ensuring helping ensure their safety.
87 - dude
sorry I still don't see the link between Iraq - Al Qaeda. I do remember the link between the U.S. and Iraq and the U.S. and Al-Qaeda ... Hey look at that, we are all to blame. Go figure.
88 - mike
The connection between the US and Iraq and Al-Qaeda is a moot point. The difference being that they support/are terrorists. They purposely kill innocent people. We do not. Don't say we do because our military did everything they could to avoid civilian deaths. You just can't have a war without some regrettable, or unavoidable actions.
89 - chris
we supplied the weapons Iraq used against their own people and us...
funny how someone earlier talked about how Bush is an ELECTED official...hah.
I for one am glad everything turned out as well as it has in Iraq, regardless of the outcome the attack was still illegal under intl. law and sets a scary precedent
90 - chris
we supplied the weapons Iraq used against their own people and us...
funny how someone earlier talked about how Bush is an ELECTED official...hah.
I for one am glad everything turned out as well as it has in Iraq, regardless of the outcome the attack was still illegal under intl. law and sets a scary precedent
91 - Al Barger
illegal under international law
What international law was this? When did the US agree to give up their sovereignty? Who died and left Kofi Anon boss?
Dubya was elected fair and square. Whining liberal babies can hold their breath until their faces turn blue, but that won't change the fact that Dubya ended up with a few hundred more votes in Florida than Gore did. The Supreme Court case was an arguable decision either way, but it did not change anything.
If you want to bitch about people who are not legitimately elected, head for your beloved United Nations. Do you even vaguely have the mistaken impression that the UN somehow represents democratic values? Puh-leese.
92 - Lacey
First of all, EVERYONE including Natalie is entitled to there own opinion. I'm not a big fan of Bush. I'm not happy we are at war. If America is so "free" then why is it sOoOoOoOoOoOoOo anti-american that she unleashed her voice? That was her opinion. I understand that if you are discraminating against her, thats your way. But think about how stupid all of this is. And for who-ever says that it's wrong not to believe in God, get over it. People get really annoyed when others try to tell them who to be. I dont believe in Christianity. I belive in God somewhat but not to the point of a conformed religion.
~*Farewell Lonesome Doves~*
*Lacey*
93 - Don
Ineternational law isn't dependant on Kofi Anon. We attacked a sovereign country that hadn't attacted us. We violated the UN charter (which we signed) by attacking another UN member without UN approval. And we violated the UN resolutions regarding Iraq in order (supposedly) to enforce those same resolutions. Specifically, UN security council resolutions include the phrase "we remain seized of this matter", which means that the security council reserves the right to interpret and enforce the resolutions. By acting on our own, we violated the resolution we claim to be enforcing.
Elected? By whom? 173,000 registered voters in Florida had their names permanently removed from the voter rolls. Why? Because their names, or addresses, or social security numbers resembled thos e of convicted felons. And absentee votes that didn't meet Florida law were counted. And, most importantly, the man who would bring demacracy in Iraq, fought and blocked a LEGAL vote recount. Why wouldn't he allow the recount? Certainly not because he had won the vote.
The al-quaida link with Iraq may or may not exist. What's definite is that we supported al-quaida, and supported Hussein when he gassed his own people. Rumsfeld shook his hand and offered our undying support while his troops were gassing Iraqis. How come nobody asks Rumsfeld about this?
94 - DavieG
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong," Roosevelt said, "is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
Theodore Roosevelt, 1918
Theodore Roseevelt was a well known Republican.
I do not agree with what Natalie said, and I am one that refuses to listen to or purchase her music based on how I choose to react to what she said. I do think she was using her American God given right to the freedom of speech! I however am using my freedom to choose. I agree with Al on many issues, but differ on our opinions of our commander and chief!
I personally believe that the interview with the Dixie Chicks that was on televised was a rediculous hope at trying to make Natalie's comment right. I know some of their music is number one, that doesn't matter to me. In her comments she considers herself a role model for young ladies, but poses nude for the cover of Entertainment Weekly. Is this the kind of role model we want for our young ladies? My opinion: Absolutely Not! Have a great day!
95 - DavieG
Oops: I agree with Al, I agree with most of Don's comments except for his comments about our commander and chief! Ain't America Great!
96 - Eric Olsen
I believe that comments to this post should continue forever.
97 - Moe L. Curly
Really, why is everyone upset? Some stupid cunt opens her mouth and people wonder that something dumb comes out? Having a nice singing voice doesn't mean you have a brain, after all. Look at that cunt Mariah Carey. Perfect example.
98 - Don
Hmmm... Where'd that Al'Quaida link go? And where are those pesky WMD's?
don
99 - Don
Still no Al Quaida link, still no WMD's.
Natalie didn't go far enough. I'm embarassed that GW is am American.
100 - don
Abu Zubaydah, a Qaeda planner and recruiter until his capture in March 2002, told his questioners last year that the idea of working with Mr. Hussein's government had been discussed among Qaeda leaders, but that Osama bin Laden had rejected such proposals, according to an official who has read the Central Intelligence Agency's classified report on the interrogation.
Separately, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the Qaeda chief of operations until his capture on March 1 in Pakistan, has also told interrogators that the group did not work with Mr. Hussein, officials said.
Both from the NY Times.
But god forbid that anyone criticize the the lying fraud in chief. Natalie was not only within her rights, but was spot on!
101 - Don
n remarks to Polish television released on Friday, President Bush stated that the U.S. has found much more than these labs. "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories"
Did I mention that he is a liar? That's LIAR! Go ahead, refute me.
We should all be embarassed - over Natalie's treatment, and the idiot in chief.
102 - Al Barger
Don shows much more concern with getting something on Bush than he does with reality, the safety of the American public, or the suffering of the Iraqi people.
There's no real question that Hussein had some nasty WMDs (even France and the wussies at the UN said so), although they're not the only reasons for knocking him out. He used the stuff on the Iranians and his own people.
Admittedly, it does look bad that we haven't found ANY of the stuff so far, but that doesn't mean we won't. If the cops called months in advance to tell a perp that we were coming in to look for bad things, it's a fair bet that he'd have the crap pretty well hid. It might take awhile, but we'll likely find some.
Not that this will change the minds of the likes of Don.
103 - Don
It won't change my mind because you're using a ludicrous analogy. As Robin Cook put it: Newsweek: Isn’t it possible that Saddam Hussein ordered their destruction, as U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has suggested?
Cook: No. I don’t think it’s even remotely possible. I just cannot follow the Rumsfeld logic; that watching CNN and seeing the American build-up Saddam said to his generals, “It’s obvious that the U.S. is going to invade; we had better destroy our biggest weapons, so that when I am toppled there might be some very difficult questions for Donald Rumsfeld to answer.”
To suggest that he hid or destroyed them on the eve of an invasion - an invasion that could only end with him being ousted, is... well... what color is the sky in your world? (Please explain the rational for him doing either of those things. Really. Try. I do listen to logic. It's awfully hard to find, though.
The adminstration said that they knew what Hussein had and where it was. They said that chemical weapons had been deployed and Iraqi troops had the authority to use them. So why can't they find them?
And any argument about the welfare of the Iraqi people is simply an attempt to change the subject. If it was the welfare of a population that was at issue, there's the millions dying of aids in Afica that we could have focused on. How about the Congo? How about Myanmar (Burma)? The war was sold on Iraq being an imminent threat to the US. This is obviously untrue.
Is the world a safer place? Are there fewer incidents of terrorism? The answer to both these questions is a resounding no. We are not safer. We are hated by more people. A large part of the world (including western Europe) sees us as a bigger threat to world peace than Hussein was.
Clinton was impeached for lying about a blow job. Hundreds of american soldiers and thousands of Iragi civilians have been killed because of Bush's lies. But you're willing to ignore those, right?
How come you don't address the lies that Bush has knowingly told? The nuclear threat - the white house knew that the documents were forgeries, yet he still cited the nuclear threat. The senior Al'Quaida operatives in custody say that cooperation with Hussein was discussed, but Bin Lauden ruled it out. Bush still claims that there is a link. And, as I pointed out before, Bush lied to the Polish press about having discovered WMD. Explain why these are not lies.
104 - Al Barger
Is the world a safer place? Are there fewer incidents of terrorism? The answer to both these questions is a resounding no. We are not safer. We are hated by more people. A large part of the world (including western Europe) sees us as a bigger threat to world peace than Hussein was.
Let me address just this part. Is the world a safer place, with fewer incidents of terrorism? Well, yes it is, at least for the US. There have been no further Arab fanatics making terrorist attacks in the US. There's also one major less place for them to get support for such a project in the future.
A large part of the world sees us as a bigger threat to peace that Hussein was? Good- if it's true. They'll know better than to screw with us.
They hate us? Well if they do, then they did before we liberated Iraq. They can hate us all they want. It won't hurt my feelings. Just so they know that we may well put a boot in their ass if they even make us think they're a threat.
105 - Don
"Is the world a safer place, with fewer incidents of terrorism? Well, yes it is, at least for the US. There have been no further Arab fanatics making terrorist attacks in the US. There's also one major less place for them to get support for such a project in the future."
First - there has only been one significant terrorist attack (from outside sources) on US soil. That fact that there hasn't been a second is NOT an indication that we are safer. We are as "safe" as we were on Sep. 10th. (As I pointed out - logic is hard to find)
Second - Terrorist have a lot more support in Irag now. It may not be the government, but they have a hell of a lot more support among the population of Iraq. And the way things are going, any moderate, pro-US government we install will last until we remove our troops. I certainly hope thats not how it plays out, but we certainly don't have a track record of doing any better. BTW: Afghanistan has reclaimed it's title as the largest producer of opium in the world.
106 - Don
The administration wasn't matching its deeds to its words in the war on terrorism. They're making us less secure, not more secure," said Beers, who until now has remained largely silent about leaving his National Security Council job as special assistant to the president for combating terrorism. "As an insider, I saw the things that weren't being done. And the longer I sat and watched, the more concerned I became, until I got up and walked out."
We're safer, huh? Natalie was right. He's an embarrassement.
107 - Don
Oh, yes - According to Al: They hate us? Well if they do, then they did before we liberated Iraq.
I'm sure that the canadians, the belgians, the french, the germans, the british, the french, and those damn danes all hated us before the usurper started an unjustified war based entirely on lies.
108 - Al Barger
Someone rang? Let me make this perfectly clear: I ultimately do not give a rat's ass who hates us, I will support defending the country. I care about unnecessarily giving people a good reason to hate us, but the mere arbitrary emotional states of other people weigh very low in my concern compared to defense of the realm.
You can call Bush names all you want, but we took out a particularly nasty mass murderer who has had and used WMDs and had strong ties to various Muslim terrorists. The world is a better place, and America is a little safer. Jackasses are starting to get a clue that we're not a paper tiger. The smart ones will fear US. If they hate us as well, tough titty for them.
109 - Don
Terrorists don't have countries to attack, so why should they fear our willingness to attack governments?
And speaking of Jackasses: Bush LIED. And LIED. And LIED. There are no WMD's. Any ties to terrorists are at least ten years old. Hussein used WMD's on his own people with our support - Rumsfeld was shaking his hand and offering our undying support while he was doing it. Oh, yes... We provided him with the means to do it.
Crowing about the removal of Saddam is admitting that he wasn't a threat - as you won't address that issue.
Clinton was impeached over a blow job that hurt no one except his family. Bush 's lies resulted in the deaths of neary 200 American soldiers - and nearly one more every day (but you evidently dont give a "rat's ass" about them, either). The war also killed a minimum of 5,000 Iraqi civilians. Too bad, eh? At least they got killed by american soldiers instead of Saddaams henchmen. I'm sure that they, and their families, are proud.
Does the word "Vietnam" ring a bell? An american soldier is dying nearly every day. But at least you're safer, right?
By the way, Bush is also a deserter. Is stating facts the same as calling names?
110 - Don
OK, now that we've got that out of the way, point me to the evidence that shows we're safer. I don't mean assertions, as in terrorist links and WMD's, but actually evidence that either of these actually existed before the war started and were threats to us. We can only be "safer" if a threat has been removed.
111 - Laurie
I love the MUSIC of the Dixie Chicks and really had no idea what the heck she said until I looked it up oline today because I was curious. Well, now I know but you know what? They are a band and I love their music! I leave it at that. And another thing-- I don't care about a goddamn thing other than--- my husband has a nine incher, so what the heck are all these posts about again?
112 - Al Barger
Laurie: Congratulations on your husband's large penis. Perhaps you'd like to share some pictures.
As to the Dixie Chicks, I'm just puzzled over why so many people like their mediocre music. Do you own any Dolly Parton or Loretta Lynn records?
113 - Eric Olsen
Al, They aren't in the same universe as the classic ladies of country, they are a pop-rock bluegrass band and are fine at what they do as far as it goes - it just doesn't go all that far. They are the female Firefall.
114 - Natalie
Heh. Firefall with violins and twangin'...
They're no Alison Krauss or Ralph Stanley, but I'll buy Chicks albums whenever they release 'em as my way of saying thanks.
115 - Al Barger
Natalie- Buying crappy Dixie Chicks albums is an outstanding idea for you to continue your anti-US protest. This way, your money goes to record company retards to put up their noses, rather than anything actually working against our national defense.
Indeed, I recommend cashing out your life savings, and investing it in a bunch of Dixie Chicks albums to give out to all your anti-American friends and neighbors.
116 - Natalie
Thanks for the tip, mate!
117 - Doctor Slack
On the other hand, every Toby Keith album you purchase sends a full $20 to the Department of Homeland Security so it can keep on doing... whatever the hell it's doing. Plus, it will reassure the Administration and its self-appointed lapdog chorus that you're a Patriotic American and not a commie Saddam-loving idiotarian liberal Muslim-hugging pacifist flower-child feminist atheist pagan heathenistic milquetoast limp-wristed retarded surrender-monkey-loving French-fry-eating defeatist pro-terrorist anti-American swine, which you obviously must be if you dared use that First Amendment right thingamajig to oppose the war.
Hell, I'll bet Al buys a TK album once a day. Maybe even twice a day!
118 - Natalie
Mmmm... French fries.
119 - Al Barger
Mmmm... swine
The "Angry American" song is pretty good. Not good enough for me to actually spend money on, but listenable. I find it politically palatable, and I particularly appreciate how badly it cheeses off the anti-American crowd. I wouldn't actually spend money on any record just to say I was pissing people off, though.
120 - Don
Is there anyone who is not embarassed about the lies this administration has told?
121 - Al Barger
Don apparently thinks that if he just throws the word "lies" at the administration enough, it will make it so. However, I haven't seen even ONE clear cut lie from the Bush White House.
Sure, keep a close eye. Keep them honest. They're politicians, and are expected to do some spinning and stretching, but they aren't just making stuff up as the Clintons absolutely did.
Just automatically and constantly hollering "liar, liar" will not, however, have any impact on the reputation of the Bush administration. It only makes you look like an idiot.
You have NO plan to actually protect the country and do the job, but exist only to spite and frustrate the ones really having to do the job.
Jebus Criminy, it's enough to make me want to crank on some classic Merle Haggard "Fighting Side of Me."
122 - Doctor Slack
"However, I haven't seen even ONE clear cut lie from the Bush White House."
Ahem.
Ahem.
Ahem.
Ahem.
Ahem.
I mean really, you have to be living in a cave at this point.
123 - Don
Thanks, Doc! I just assumed that when even O'Reilly admits it, pretty much everyone would.
Here's another one:
Bush told the Polish media that we had found the WMD. (He just forgot to tell us.)
And another: Bush said that he had not enaged in insider stock trading while on the board of Harken Energy, as he didn't know that a restatement of earnings was pending. (He was only an auditor for the Board of Directors - why would he know?) Late last year, he released a memo from corporate coucil warning board members that if they sold stock while the restatement was pending, they could trigger an insider trading investigation. The memo should have been turned over to the SEC 12 years earlier.
I have to go to work, but I could go on all day.
124 - Don
I'm back!
How about Bush's claim (during the campaign) that he had never been arrested? When documents showing that he'd been arrested for drunken driving were released, his excuse was that he was trying to protect his family. Evidently lying about your past is a republican family value.
125 - Don
As for throwing the word "lies" and making it stick, maybe I'll try it. It sure worked for WMD's. And if they had "absolute proof" of their existance and they "know where they are", how come they can't find any? Could it be because they lied?
How about Rumsfelds claim they hadn't relied any any new intelligence to make their case? They cited ongoing weapons programs. They said they knew where production facilities were. Rumsfeld said that they believed that the Iraqi's had reconstituted nuclear weapons.
Now there's a lie in there somewhere. Current information has to be based on current intelligence. But they didn't rely on any current intelligence. So where'd the current information come from?