With the right of free speech, comes the right not to speak. I wish more athletes and entertainers would exercise that right, because it doesn't matter whether they are for or against Bush or the war.

I'm never going to buy a Pixies album again, either.

And, man, when is Gregg Zaun's book coming out? There's only so long I can stay uninformed....

What's the difference between idiot liberals and idiot conservatives?

It's really smart to claim "baseball should continue if the United States goes to war against Iraq" though. It would be really bad for them if the war caused them to lose money.

(#6) - Jonathan

Well, saying you're embarrassed about a child molester and a crappy quarterback is a LITTLE different than going overseas on the brink of war and saying you're ashamed of your President.

I'm embarrassed that George W. Bush is an American.

And if that means that Gregg Zaun doesn't like me, either, then so be it. I'm pretty much done cheering for him, too.

I just don't understand what can possibly be gained from such comments, either way. Here Gregg Zaun has turned many people against him, while Ms. Maines upsets a lot of her audience with the remarks she makes in England...regardless of what one thinks, why not just steer clear of such issues entirely?

I think all of this hubbub about celebrities speaking out against the war is silly.

You might not want to watch the Oscar's this year.

Greatest Headline Ever: Skynyrd Guitarist Not Sure About War With Iraq

Horatio,

[...] regardless of what one thinks, why not just steer clear of such issues entirely?

Because Mr. Zaun and Ms. Chick and I all live in a democratic republic, where the public debate of public policy is necessary to the functioning of our government.

It's not just that they have the right of free speech, which is a matter of personal choice as others have said. It's that, on any issue of importance, whether it is as huge as an invasion, or something like the Privatization of Medicare, or the choice of a Supreme Court Justice, or a rezoning law in my hometown, is a matter for public debate. That public debate is informed by and informs the debate in the legislatures and executive mansions; if the unelected public abdicates this responsibility, their elected representatives can be expected to abdicate theirs.

It is true, palpably true, that a fair number of celebrities, athletes, musicians, and actors, are ill-informed inarticulate imbeciles. It is also true that a fair number of posters to this blog fall into that category. And a large number of people in my workplace. And, for all I can tell, my self. Also, a fair number of pundits, a fair number of talk-show hosts, and a fair number of elected officials. If we all don't discuss our own ideas about public policy, who will govern, and how?

Thank you,

When Alec Baldwin, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins and the others who promised to leave the country if Bush was elected do so, I might start paying attention to them again. If you promise to do something, even (or especially) as a symbolic act, you had damned well better do it or lose all credibility.

The problem here is not with the celebrity giving their opinion about politics. It is with the people who care about the opinions of celebrities more than the opinions of the guy who sprays the shoes at the bowling alley.

I'm embarrassed that George W. Bush is an American.

In a society that should take pride in its diversity, this sort of statement is decidedly un-American. Takes all kinds, and America's got all kinds. Unfortunately for you, they're not all like you.

Alec Baldwin may or may not have promised to leave the country if Bush was elected, but none of the other celebrities Steve mentioned did. So says snopes.com, anyway. Robert Altman made this threat, though, and has so far reneged on it.

A small pizzeria over in Jutland (Denmark) posted a sign in its window stating it wouldn't serve french or german people (happened about 6 or 7 weeks ago).

While this didn't cause much of a stir over here, what DID make the national news was the fact that some american radio stations called up this pizza place to 'bless' and commend the owner.

FWIW...

From Teddy Roosevelt, during WWI:

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, irght or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

DG & Varmintito -- look at the homepage link.

JAB: What people are saying when they are embarassed of George W. Bush, they mean that they are embarassed that he is the person that was chosen to be our representative in front of the whole world.

Well, I don't have a problem with that. It's the blanket statement of being embarrassed that W is an American that raises my hackles. Is one person the quintessential American that can be embarrassed of others for sharing the American label? I mean, if W embarrasses you, wouldn't most Americans embarrass you? Then, you spend all your time being embarrassed. . . . We're a varied bunch, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

I like that people are able to speak their minds and disagree with the President. It's great. It's also ironic during anti-war protests when people suggest that America is the terrorist. Of course, they can say that BECAUSE they are in America. Go to Iraq and suggest Iraq is the terrorist and you die painfully.

Although I don't agree with anti-war protesters (in this instance), I'm glad they're there to provide a check on the war hawks. It does make a difference.

When asked what sort of mustard she used in place of French's, she said "dijon"."

Maybe it's a good thing that UCLA didn't make the tournament this year. I can't even imagine what the crowd hatred toward Dijon Thompson would be like.

I may think my sister is totally in the wrong about something, but I'll be damned if I'm going to join with people outside of my family in criticizing her.

Got it from a Stanley Kutler column in the Trib.

I read it off the net, but it says it was published yesterday.

It was only a matter of time before some idiot trotted out the Hitler references...

Well, I can't find the Teddy quote, but I find a lot that suggest it's bogus. For example, pulling from Bartlett's and others, he said:

The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is the most brutal wrongdoer.

or, on invading the Phillipines

England's rule in India and Egypt has been of great benefit to England, for it has trained up generations of men accustomed to look at the larger and loftier side of public life. It has been of even greater benefit to India and Egypt. And finally, and most of all, it has advanced the cause of civilization. So, if we do our duty aright in the Philippines, we will add to that national renown which is the highest and finest part of national life, will greatly benefit the people of the Philippine Islands, and, above all, we will play our part well in the great work of uplifting mankind. But to do this work, keep ever in mind that we must show in a very high degree the qualities of courage, of honesty, and of good judgment. Resistance must be stamped out. The first and all-important work to be done is to establish the supremacy of our flag. We must put down armed resistance before we can accomplish anything else, and there should be no parleying, no faltering, in dealing with our foe. As for those in our own country who encourage the foe, we can afford contemptuously to disregard them; but it must be remembered that their utterances are not saved from being treasonable merely by the fact that they are despicable.

or

When great nations fear to expand, shrink from expansion, it is because their greatness is coming to an end. Are we, still in the prime of our lusty youth, still at the beginning of our glorious manhood, to sit down among the outworn people, to take our place with the weak and the craven? A thousand times no!

On other, still potentially relevant, matters:

The old parties are husks, with no real soul within either, divided on artificial lines, boss-ridden and privilege-controlled, each a jumble of incongruous elements, and neither daring to speak out wisely and fearlessly on what should be said on the vital issues of the day.

or

No people is wholly civilized where a distinction is drawn between stealing an office and stealing a purse.

or

There is something to be said for government by a great aristocracy which has furnished leaders to the nation in peace and war for generations; even a Democrat like myself must admit this. But there is absolutely nothing to be said for government by a plutocracy, for government by men very powerful in certain lines and gifted with the ?money touch,? but with ideals which in their essence are merely those of so many glorified pawnbrokers.

or

There can be no fifty-fifty Americanism in this country. There is room here for only 100% Americanism, only for those who are Americans and nothing else. The context here is "hyphenated Americans" not traitorous pacifists.

or

It is essential that there should be organization of labor. This is an era of organization. Capital organizes and therefore labor must organize.

or my personal favorite bizarre quote, which I think he means to apply to political spin:

One of our defects as a nation is a tendency to use what have been called ?weasel words.? When a weasel sucks eggs the meat is sucked out of the egg. If you use a ?weasel word? after another there is nothing left of the other.

Robert:

If you're referring to the Goerring quotation, I don't think it's idiotic here. Instead, it gets to the heart of the questions we've been wrestling with on the nature of patriotism. I happen to believe that any comparison between the upcoming war in the Middle East and World War II are unfounded, but it is important to note that the soldiers who fought for Nazi Germany and imperial Japan considered themselves good patriots. If patriotism is to be considered a virtue, it has to have a meaning above dying for the policies of one's country's current leaders.

Here's another TR quote - a more specific condemnatoin of Wilson & less a general call for wartime dissent, but rather similar:

"The greatest damage that can be done to the cause of deceny in this country is to stand by Wilson in such a way as to impoly that we approve or condone his utterly cynical disregard of considerations of patriotism and national efficiency and his eagerness to sacrifice anything if to do so will advance his own political interests."

This was in a letter to his son Kermit on November 9, 1917.

Based on the tone of that statement, & Stanley Kutler's reputation as a historian (Abuse of Power) I find it pretty likely that TR said the quote in post #36.

"Posted 10:51 a.m., March 19, 2003 (#60) - WaltDavis

Walt -- how could you not find the TR quote? I got a ton of hits off of a google search. Also, did you look at the link in my previous post? It's to a PBS series on the American Presidency. I think that's a pretty reliable source.

Who cares? The Dixie Chicks are hot!

In a situation where a majority of the country supports an action (a general situation, not Iraq specifically), it's patriotic to support your country rather than protest that you didn't get your way.

I don't want to get into a flamewar, but patriotism means both love of and support for one's country and its interests. While I don't think it's possible to be actively attempting to undermine its interests, I think it's possible to have a differing conception of your country's interests from both the majority of people and its current administration.

At any rate, patriotism is the refuge of scoundrels (and not always the last one as Dr. Johnson would have it). There are motivations and duties - such as preserving the rights, lives, and freedoms of one's fellow human beings - which far exceed mere patriotism, and I think that people on both sides of these issues recognize that.

Just my $.02... I'm going back to baseball now. (Well, actually I'm going back to work, but I'm going back to _thinking_ about baseball).

Mr. Zaun and many others are mistaken. The correct response to speech you deem to be incorrect is to counter it with ideas you believe *are* correct. When you counter speech with speech, you are participating in the marketplace of ideas and allowing the strength of your ideas to carry your position. When you boycott someone's product simply because you disagree with their ideas in another realm, you are exercising coercion. In effect, you are telling that person that you cannot win an argument with them, so you are going to hurt them some other way. It is not very far from punching someone in the face for saying something you didn't want to hear.

First of all, you realize that this applies to Natalie Maines too, right? I mean, unless I missed the peace plan she outlined at the concert.

Secondly, I understand where you're coming from, but come on. Please don't confuse boycotts with punching someone in the face. There's absolutely nothing wrong with boycotting the Dixie Chicks, or Gregg Zaun or anyone else. Zaun's not "hurting" anyone; the Dixie Chicks are not entitled to his financial support. And I don't get "coercion" at all. what exactly is he coercing them to do?

As for the restaurant owner who stopped serving "french" fries, apparently some U.S. Representatives offered a bill to make the House commissary serve "freedom fries" and "freedom toast." So at least the restaurant owner isn't the biggest idiot out there.

Uh... no. Congress had the name changed on the menu at the commissary. That's it. Two minutes work.

If they had wasted time passing a resolution for something as superficial as this, then you would have a point.

It wasn't even "Congress" that did it, it was just the one guy, who's congressional liaison to the cafteria or whatever.

Jeez, nobody likes anagrams anymore?

I believe the two GOP congressmen asked the cafeteria to change the name and then held a *press conference* on the subject. Certainly more than two minutes work. The fact that it wasn't the subject of a Bill doesn't make it any less idiotic or a waste of time.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with boycotting the Dixie Chicks, or Gregg Zaun or anyone else. Zaun's not "hurting" anyone; the Dixie Chicks are not entitled to his financial support.

It wasn't Zaun's financial support that was in question. He forced the Marlins' PA system operator to turn off the Dixie Chicks song playing over the stadium loudspeakers. In other words, he was exercising control over the Florida Marlins' financial support of the Dixie Chicks. Since this happened in a stadium that was open to (and funded by) the public, Zaun was basically saying that he, Gregg Zaun -- not the team owners, the stadium owners, or the fans -- should have the sole right to dictate which musical groups have acceptable politics to be played over the PA system. Even if you agree with Zaun's opinions, you'd have to say that his actions were arrogant at best, reprehensible at worst.

It wasn't Zaun's financial support that was in question. He forced the Marlins' PA system operator to turn off the Dixie Chicks song playing over the stadium loudspeakers. In other words, he was exercising control over the Florida Marlins' financial support of the Dixie Chicks. Since this happened in a stadium that was open to (and funded by) the public, Zaun was basically saying that he, Gregg Zaun -- not the team owners, the stadium owners, or the fans -- should have the sole right to dictate which musical groups have acceptable politics to be played over the PA system. Even if you agree with Zaun's opinions, you'd have to say that his actions were arrogant at best, reprehensible at worst.

No. Doug Bochtler asked the PA guy to turn off the music (He certainly didn't "force" him, or control anything). The only thing Gregg Zaun said was that he would stop buying their records. Since Zaun is the player referenced by TJ in #72, and boycotts are explicitly mentioned, it's pretty obvious that's what TJ was talking about.

As for whether it's arrogant/reprehensible, it seems like players generally have some say over the music that gets played. If that's the custom, I don't see why it becomes reprehensible now, when poitical considerations are raised. And it doesn't sound like Bochtler was alone among the players, either.

"Disagreeing is fine. Whoever, if you won't put that disagreement behind you and fight for your way of life is not only unpatriotic, but it is cowardice, and disrespectful to the millions who have fought for this country."

This doesn't make any sense. Could you elaborate?

What's really ironic is the idea that just knowing that you are free to disagree or protest should be sufficient, and actually disagreeing or protesting is at best, superfluous, and at worst, unpatriotic.

I don't really see how that's ironic. Please explain . . . I may just be slow on the uptake this morning.

I never suggested anyone was entitled to anyone's financial support. My concern was with people who suggest something along the lines of "I would have purchased X, but that person expressed view Y in forum Z" when X and Z are not related to each other. You either like the Dixie Chicks music or you don't; you either agree with Maines regarding Bush or you don't. What does one have to do with the other?

For some people there is a connection. Some people choose not to support others for political reasons. What's the difference between this and choosing not to buy Nikes because they use cheap overseas labor, or not buying Domino's Pizza because the owners are Nazis or whatever it is? Would you tell those people the same thing, that as long as the stitching is good and the shoes are comfy/the cheese is hot and the sauage is tasty that they shouldn't give a #### about Nike's/Domino's policies?

What is the point of saying he's not going to buy another of their "records" (are records still made anymore? He's not *that* old, is he? but I digress...) if not to suggest that he hopes doing so will help to silence them?

The point is he doesn't want to personally support them.

DTS(#31)--what if we applied your logic on a global scale?

Works even better. The statement "I'm embarrassed that George W. Bush is an earthling" is even worse.

I believe the two GOP congressmen asked the cafeteria to change the name and then held a *press conference* on the subject. Certainly more than two minutes work. The fact that it wasn't the subject of a Bill doesn't make it any less idiotic or a waste of time.

Okay, fifteen minutes work. Sheesh!

I don't think it's idiotic. Actually, I really don't think much about it all since I don't eat there. :-)

Missed one thing...

<i>Secondly, I understand where you're coming from, but come on. Please don't confuse boycotts with punching someone in the face.

Let me be clear: I support bush too.

Oh, you mean the President?

becauase I love my country and I wouldn't dream of disrepecting those who have fought for it.

She didn't disrespect those who fought for it. She disrespected the President. Perhaps you're definition of "fought for it" is looser than mine, but I wouldn't call a couple of years in the champagne squad of the Texas Air National Guard (at least, the part when he wasn't AWOL) "fighting for your country."

"Where I draw the line, is when they refuse to back up the country after the choice has been made. The choice is made, its time to live with it. This when you button your lip and defend your country weather it is by taking up arms or weather it is defending it verbally."

It sounds like you're attacking people that refuse to serve after they've been drafted. That's a completely different issue. Are you saying that once the decision to go to war has been made, no public figures should criticize the war efforts or the goverment? I'm sorry, but that's absurd. As many posters have pointed out, unquestioning support of our government -- even during war -- runs contrary to the ideals of this country. Should the founding fathers have kept their mouths shut? They were, after all, citizens of England.

I feel pretty much the same way srar does. The fact that I disagree with the political necessity or logic behind the war on Iraq has no bearing on my respect for America's servicemen and women, which is immense.

I thought about Chrissy Hynde when talking about the boycotts, but what can you say? There are some celebrities like that, just as there are some regular people like that, but not enough to get worked up over. I'd rather listen to the best arguments on both sides rather than rant about the lunatic fringe.

The funny thing about Ms. Hynde's comment about wanting the Muslims to win, is the obvious fact that in many Muslim societies, she would be forced to wear a burka and keep her mouth shut.

I mean "burqa"

Is Chrissy Hynde even a US citizen? I remember her being described as an expatriate about 15 years ago. I realize you can be an expat and still hold US citizenship, but that's a long time. I'm just wondering if anyone knows whether she renounced her citizenship?

I would severly reccomend you not say that to my face if our paths ever cross.

That's so funny. "Say it to my face!!! Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!"

Cracks me up.

Post # 64 is the funniest thing ever, nice work.

Some random thoughts: has anyone pointed out to Mr. Zaun that the president himself has expressed his acceptance of domestic dissent on several occassions?

Which is more supportive of our troops: sending them to war, or sending them home?

Speculating about the political instincts of an entire society is meaningless. Do Americans naturally want to be part of the crowd and support their leaders? Maybe, maybe not. Philosophers, sociologists, psychologists, political scientists and baseball players have spent centuries trying to answer this, and have gotten nowhere. The only thing they've concluded is that progrommatic statements about social psychology and political instict are stupid.

But apparently to some that's not important. Having respect for human life is not important. What is important is belonging to a group, having a clear sense of right and wrong, and being a tool. And anyone who dares to challenge that must be a coward.

Amazing how you've gotten everybody who's opinion is different than your own figured out. Please don't consider the possibilities that people have struggled mightily with their feelings over the war, and that they have weighed the evidence and the possibilites of what may occur if indeed the Iraqi government was to be left completely unchecked. Also please ignore that many people who do struggle with these issues give the benefit of the doubt to their leaders out of faith in decisions that those leaders will make. That may be naive, but it's certainly not a gesture done out of intentional malice or wishing harm on citizens of foreign countries.

You're ignorant characterization of those you disagree with is the worst sort of stereotyping.

I never talked politics with my students (18 Navy people of various ranks, 3 guys in the Marines). But it was obvious from stuff they wrote in class many of them felt that not supporting Bush's policy in Iraq was a slap in the face to them personally.

Is this something that happened as an outgrowth of Vietnam? Is it simply because the Pres. is the Commander-in-Chief?



srar, I teach a lot military folks, and I'd say your hunch is right--this is an outgrowth of Vietnam. Inside the military it seems to be conventional wisdom (bordering on dogma) that domestic protests were the greatest detriment to success in Vietnam and ought to be considered de facto (if not de jure) treason, and suggests a lack of concern for the lives and well-being of military personnel. Now, like a great deal of conventional wisdom/dogma, this belief is dead wrong. It is well explained by simple pyschological principles, of course.

FYI, in general I find military students to be much more intelligent and open minded than many of my leftie friends would expect them to be. But on this point, most of them are dogmatic and unwilling to rethink this position.

Will someone please get RMc in here so we can lock the door?

What amuses me about celebrities who pontificate about a certain subject is that many of them confuse "freedom of speech" with "freedom from criticism without consequences."

But, as the cliche goes, it's a free country.

Your father fought an immoral war that he shouldn't have particpated in.

Couldn't statements like this contribute to why soldiers feel criticism of the war is aimed at them? I may not agree with war in Iraq, but I certainly don't blame any soldiers for participating. I think the military would crumble fairly quickly if it was left up to each individual soldier to decide what conflicts to fight in and which ones to avoid.

BTW, there's no that was the George Bush. He didn't use the word "disarm" at all, and he didn't even invoke 9/11 once, twice, or eleven times.

Shredder

I don't know if Chrissie Hynde holds an american passport, but as I understand it, there is no limitation to years as an ex-pat that results in a revoking of your passport. I've been a danish 'resident' for nearly 16 years, have no intention of relinquinshing my US citzenship, and have yet to hear from my local embassy that I may have to.

Today is a strange day, almost surrealistic as the news of the border build-up of troops comes through the airwaves/web. Emotion is running high, and I for one 'pray' that this war is short and definitive. There are a lot of men, women and children, in uniform and not, armed and not, whose immediate future is about to be the stuff of a lifetime's contemplation.

I'd think that we all agree that the lesser the loss of life, the better. Speculation as how history will view this conflict is fool's gold a this moment - the die are cast, what will be will be.

It won't be an easy night's rest.

Nathan, I wasn't referring to any "years gone" rule. I just thought since she moved to London so long ago (and last I heard, she still lived overseas, though I could be wrong), she may have decided to renounce her citizenship and become a British citizen (subbject?).

Well, now that US troops are on the ground, fighting in Basra this is all a little moot, don't we think?

For some people there is a connection...

And they're wrong.

Who the hell are you to tell other people how they should be making decisions? People, having free will, are entitled to take whatever they want into account when deciding how to spend their money.

Re Nike: the analogy is false. If you believed Nike had behaved unjustly in manufacturing the shoes, then you are choosing to directly address the substance of Nike's actions if you choose not to buy them. By not buying a Dixie Chicks CD that you intended to purchase, otherwise have no problem with, and doesn't have any political content to it simply because you disagree with their position on Pres. Bush (which is a bit more than Zaun said, but it is implied in his statement and in those of some posters who responded), you are taking action that is not related to the issue at hand, and you are misguided.

The issue at hand is whether or not Zaun wants to buy a Dixie Chicks album. If he has personal or political problems with them, it's directly related.

I would say the same to someone who acted the same way toward Ted Nugent because of his public stances on gun control; "Cat Scratch Fever" is no less a good song and shooting an arrow into stuff at a concert is no less cool to see just because I think he's wrong on the 2nd Amendment, and if I let that guide my buying decisions, I'm trying to coerce him into staying silent. I'm not trying to change his mind about the substance of his position.

This is utterly ridiculous, to the point of Orwellian in terms of usign the word "coercion". Maybe you're trying to "coerce" someone into staying silent by not buying an album, but wow, what a laughable way of doing it.

Literally, metaphorically, on any level it doesn't work. Deciding not to buy someone's record is not remotely analogous in any way to punching them in the face.

One is an attempt to coerce another person into remaining silent that doesn't address the content of the speech. The other is an attempt to coerce another person into remaining silent that doesn't address the content of the speech.

Ridiculous. Gregg Zaun has no power over the Dixie Chicks at all. He's completely unable to coerce them into doing anything.

It's not important to the discussion, but here's a link on Domino's boycotts:

http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0404_Dominos_Pizza.html

So, after all that, we agree? You agree it is an attempt to coerce someone into staying silent, and I agree it's a pretty silly way to go about it.

Sorry, we don't agree. My point is that the action, of not buying an album, is so far removed from anything which remotely resembles coercion that calling it an attempt (your words, not Zaun's) is ridiculous. For Zaun to even believe that he's coercing them, he'd have to be seriously mentally deficient. The more simple, and more plausible, explanation is that he chooses not to support them.

I was just wondering about Retardo et al. Could someone check on them? Are they okay?

I take any political statement by an athlete or entertainer -- liberal or conservative -- with a grain of salt...

I take any comment from anyone with a grain of salt.....entertainer, ball player, insert your occupation here. Each of them is an opinion from an individual who may or may not have a clue what the hell they're talking about. I just love it when we (regular folk) say "What the hell does insert celebrity here know about it?". Well....what the hell do you know about it? Only what you read in the paper, see on TV, or read in a book -- same as Joe Celebrity.

"I've never met a right winger who didn't like war."

I did: My 8th grade world history teacher. Registered Republican, fiscal conservative, but a nice and reasonable man anyway. Of course, he left about three pints of blood in North Korea as a young man. A thing like that's bound to give you a little perspective.

OK, found the TR quote from a reasonably reputable source here. A fuller quote from an editorial he wrote for KC Star is below and quite apropos, even if probably motivated more by personal dislike for Wilson than a principled belief in the right to criticize government during wartime (which he wasn't so fond of when he was Prez).

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

"Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", 149

Walt -- how could you not find the TR quote? I got a ton of hits off of a google search. Also, did you look at the link in my previous post? It's to a PBS series on the American Presidency. I think that's a pretty reliable source.

Yes, I got tons of hits on a google search too, but none of them I considered reliable (i.e. none within the first 20-30, I gave up after that) -- most appeared to be sites with a political bent. There are tons of misattributed quotes and "facts" out there and I only trust verifiable sources. So I went to the online reference section here at UNC figuring this would show up in the quotations sources.

Your link was posted in between the time I started my post and when I actually posted my post.

Nevertheless, I think it's clear that quoting Roosevelt on this is quite disingenuous. When he was at war, he considered it treasonable to dissent; when a Prez he despised was at war, he considered it patriotic to dissent. Typical Republican. :-)

And of course when we put it into the context of his expansionist and militaristic actions, quoting Roosevelt in defense of dissent and thereby in this context war-resistance is ludicrous. When it comes to foreign affairs, Roosevelt and Bush have a lot in common.

Disagreeing is fine. Whoever, if you won't put that disagreement behind you and fight for your way of life is not only unpatriotic, but it is cowardice, and disrespectful to the millions who have fought for this country.

The current US government and its policies are a threat to my way of life, much more so than Iraq's regime.

I am against the war as it is being played out, but I would definitely like to see Hussein removed from power. However, after this occurs, I would like to see the US remove itself completely, and let the UN take on the job of reconstruction. I don't trust the US to do anything outside of its own interests, and the Iraqis deserve better.

"Gregg Zaun is a horrendous player, Natalie Maines is an awesome musician and entertainer. The only way a Gregg Zaun can get his name in the paper is to blast a real talent."

Logic, I'd argue that Natalie Maines's talent isn't very high either. Record Sales are not a good indicator of actual talent these days.

Baghdad9:

Corrections: Should say the largest Muslim terror group IN THE PHILIPINES.

Also, the part below Baghdad9 other than the Hume part is towards every dogmatic soldier comment, not at Baghdad9.

"Here's why I have problems with this war at its crux: How is this war helping us to destroy Al-Qaeda?"

"Steve of Memphis, they've got pretty good evidence Al-Qaeda is there. Unfortunately, I can't find that webpage I was just reading [and no, it wasn't FOX-GOP-News]. Look at history. Saddam almost let Carlos the Jackal hide in his country when his world came crashing down around him."

I'd love to see that webpage. If the evidence is so good then how come Bush doesn't mention it - he just links them & moves on. I see liberals say there's no evidence, but I don't see that countered with specifics. Am I looking in the wrong places? As for the Carlos the Jacal - he's never had anything to do with al-Qaeda. Are we going to go to war because 15 years ago Hussein harbored a terrorist who'd nailed the Isrealis a quarter century ago?

"Tim McVeigh: They are starting to find circumstancial evidence towards an Al-Qaeda connection in the bombing. From the uncredible but admittedly honest rotten.com, "He stayed in Florida briefly, where he lived with his sister for a month or two. Just a few miles down the road, future al Qaeda agent Jose Padilla was "coincidentally" serving up those tasty burritos McVeigh loved so much (he subsisted on them during his trial for the OKC bombing)."Tim McVeigh ate Taco Bell everyday, and Padilla worked there. Plus, Nicholls spent time in the Phillipines [and while he was incredibly racist, married a Philipino.] The largest Muslim terrorist group is very well connected to Al-Qaeda through their leader, a close friend of Osama[but our all-knowing intelligence services aren't sure how well]."

You're going to need more than that. Reminds me of when Jeffrey Dahmer was arrested - they were linking him to all kinds of murders (he was in Florida a few miles from Adam Walsh when he was kidnapped, while stationed in Germany there were a few murders by the army base. Nichols spent time in the Phillipeans? Dahmer eats Taco Bell?

Gammons,

I think it starts with your next column, in which you recall the long conversatons you had with Roger Clemens in the 80s...About his brother's service in Viet Nam...The soundtrack from the "Woostock" movie was playing in the background...You then quote some of your favorite lyrics...Then wax poet about how Clemens's fastball hasn't lost anything in 15 years.

"work to elect different leaders next time"

I LIKE this plan!

Well, in all fairness, we did elect a different leader last time.

Different source on the Al-Qaeda thing:

At least Bush should level with the American people on the costs of the war, and be honest about how he plans to pay for it, given the massive tax cuts he has proposed.

"Also, didn't I leave a HUGE disclaimer on the Tim McVeigh thing? I put it out as information, not as something to be taken as 100% fact. Just food for thought."

You did - sorry if I came on too strong in my reply. I meant no disrepect. I appreciate your reply.

Baghdad9: No problem.

Chris J: That is why writing is no substitute for speaking. My post probably sounded angry too, but I meant no ill will.

Must... not... get... sucked... into... this... thread...

"Oh, by the way, they're bombing Afganistan, too."

The timing is kind of interesting. It seems intended to deflect the political criticism that Bush's focus on Iraq is hurting the war on terrorism. The fingerprints of Karl Rove seem to be all over this decision.

It is noteworthy that the recent budget the Bush Administration sent to Congress failed to include any (zero) funding for rebuilding or protecting Afghanistan.

"We Love Peace"

Don't be naive:

I think we'd all be surprised at the amount of spy crap they have that we don't know about. One of the reasons they weren't so forthcoming with info was that they wouldn't want other people to know what they could do to get that info. Having Israel as our second biggest ally gives us the world's smartest spy service, the Mossad, and the multitude of info they can give us. It may sound like a conspiracy theory, but I think they have spy stuff and the ability to get a lot more than we even fantasize about. Search for "Echelon" if you want the most recent thing that snuck out.

I just want to point out that I've said nothing on this thread. Oops.

"""Posted 12:45 p.m., March 19, 2003 (#124) - Keith

Baghdad9.

May be so, but that's how it's being spun by the talking heads and their expert guests on the various cable news outlets.

Flynn,

Just as point of interest, isn't Chrissie Hynde the sole surivor from the group that recorded the first Pretenders album?

the funny thing, is that the dixie chicks seem to have forgotten their fan base, I mean they are a country group, who's largest group of fans are redneck hillbillies, with guns and an unnaturar infatuation with the second amendment, not to realize their value in this world is just a huge and incompentently stupid move on their part, its possible this "comment" in europe will effectively end their career as country singers, and that isn't being pessimistic, but realistic... their fan base forgives guys like ollie north long before they'll forgive an "indiscretion"... If I was the dixie chicks(and other than staring at myself in the mirror) the first thing I would do is be practicing the art of hip hop, as they have pretty much ended their country career with a loose lip... whether they have the right to exercise their speach or not doesn't change the way their fan base will look at them. and i'm sorry if you are playing to the nascar crowd, you should at least attempt to understand their thinkng.. i'm a moderate liberal, and I just think this was an incredibly stupid commment made by a pop band that has been cashing in on the lack of talent in the county scene for so long, and have only themselves to blame.

Roy-

The attack from Kuwait is Operation Rear Entry and the attack from Turkey is Operation Reach Around. Sorry, couldn't resist.

"In short - active opposition or support for entering World War II was largely based on sympathies with facism and communism."

There was also a strong isolationist sentiment in the nation as well, particularly in the Midwest (Sen Nye of ND, Sen Norris of Nebraska were among the most prominent isolationists, as was Charles Lindbergh from Minnesota, & Col. McCormick of the Chicago Tribune). In a poll taken in the 1930s, a majority of WWI vets said that they thought the US entry into WWI had been a mistake. What really changed things was the fall of France of 1940. People had been expecting a re-run of WWI.

"Chris J: That is why writing is no substitute for speaking. My post probably sounded angry too, but I meant no ill will."

That's what I figured. But I wanted to make sure it was clear that I wasn't overreating; especially given how nasty these political threads can get. :)

"I'd love to eradicate the Third World - by turning it into part of the First World and giving the people there the freedoms that we enjoy (and that they deserve). If that means (in this case) taking on a punk like Hussein and liberating the Iraqi people from his rule, fine, as long as we see it through. The war will be over quickly but the nation-building will take a lot of time. In this regard I would stand on our record in WWII - we helped extensively to rebuild Japan and Germany after the war. Hardly the hallmark of a rogue or terrorist state."

Couple few things about the above. The occupation of Germany & Japan had widespread (to put it mildly) support throughout the world. Germany was in fact officially occupied by four nations, not just the US. Also, nations aren't a blank slate - these nations did have solid economic bases, infastructures, & a solid middle class. (Tangent: how many democracies have succeeded without the presence of a strong middle class? I can't really think of many/any). All these things help in the rebuilding efforts. I remember when the US went into Somalia people were talking about how we can rebuild & improve their nation. These things ain't blank slates for us to work on. If all it took to solve a problem was for the US government to throw money at it, we would've solved quite a number of problems in this nation (education - I'm looking at you) already. Also, as mentioned earlier in this thread, Japan & Germany had the advantage of being solid nations - there was no serious threat of ethnic strife which could tear the nation apart. You have that with the Kurds in the North - & tension has been made worse under Hussein's regime. I read an article in the Chicago Tribune about a week ago talking of his Arab-ification program. Parts of it sounded like what happened in Korea under Japanese rule (students having to use Arab names to get into the schools, prioritizing government services for non-Kurds in the region, etc). Also, Bush has been very leery of any sort of nation-building efforts thus far in his presidency. I haven't seen any indication that he'd be willing to put the resources into Iraq that would allow for this.

"A few people have talked about 1st world and 3rd world nations. I'm just curious, but does anyone know who the second world nations are?"

The second world initially referred to the USSR & its Eastern European allies.

Brad -- The various "world" designations are a byproduct of the cold war. The western democracies were the 1st world, the soviet bloc was the 2nd, and the poorer, unaffiliated countries the 3rd.

Hypothetically:

Oh jeez, I just realized I never actually answered Scoop's question. (Sorry).

What would happen if that did occur? Assuming the dancing in the streets lasted & could overcome internal ethnic problems, & that the economy improved to the point that is was actually a good economy (I assume that's what you meant) - it that happens I'd be pleasantly surprised & would have to re-evaluate my worldview.

Chris J - you forgot statuary hall's own william borah, the lion of idaho, who took hitler's money. nice destruction of the silly "similar to WW2" argument, BTW.

"Noah" -- i suppose you're going to say that "fascist" ONLY has a literal historical meaning (30s-40s era Italian Goverment) but cannot be used to cannote a STYLE of government? i love how the narrowest possible definition of the word is insisted upon by those who guiltily wish it to be removed from the public lexicon.

Only a pedant ideologue would insist that Sam misused the word.

I think my definition of fascist is on the PETCO thread. But look on the "money" thread, too. Questions : yes. yes. yes. yes. probably. yes. no, obviously. no, because putting down a coup (which I am certain is aided by the US government) is not "suppressing dissent".

If you want to see REAL fascism, let the whole of the american workforce strike with the same voracity of the venezuelan "dissenters". then you'll see a bloodbath.

C.M. Burns : "Smithers, bring me some strike breakers; the kind we had back in the thirties."

(Unless, of course, only the "good" people strike: then it will just faciliate the glorious rise of John Galt, saviour of the universe, the quitshatz haddrach, the jesus christ, the anakin skywalker, the ubermench.)

On a somewhat lighter note, I think one of the more interesting subplots to this war, is the question of how many "Saddams" there are.

Every time a purported Saddam is on camera, you have to ask yourself: Is he real or is he Memorex?

I think the question is: Was Saddam eliminated in the first round?

Sam and Retardo-

"and isn't that peace-loving nation of Germany that not once but twice in the 20th century...when it felt economically constrained (not politically constrained or fearful about terrorism or weapons of mass destruction)...reacted not with a pre-emptive strike against a tyrant that had been condemned by the entire world but with great technological advances in genocide and an attempt to take over the world?..."

I'm still trying to figure this bit out here. Germany twice tried to take over the world? That's a unique interpretation of WWI. Germany attempted genocide in WWI? The atrocities in Belgium - though horrific - fell ridiculously far short of genocide. WWII was caused because Germany felt economically constrained? The economic problems of the early 30s were largely gone by '39. Hitler rode the problems to power, & then tried to install his Mein Kampf plans. Even in that war, the goal wasn't to try to take over the world - after Dunkirk he tried to negotiate an armstice with Churchill (Churchill went along for a while to try to buy time while England desparately tried to re-supply his army). The goal was to create "living space" for the Germans by taking over the lands belonging to the inferior races around him (Poles, Russians) & destroy communism in the USSR. He didn't think the Western democracies would stop him if he did. Doesn't sound like you have a real good grasp of those two wars. Also not sure how you ended up going off on a tangent about Germany.

As with Elvis, there may be Saddam and Osama sightings for decades.