SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Attack Iraq? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: calgal who wrote (5107)3/24/2003 12:43:12 AM
From: calgal  Respond to of 8683
 
March 20, 2003

Karen H. Pittman: Goodbye Natalie: Dixie Chick Eats Crow

URL:http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/pittman_20030320.html

If children and chicken must always be pickin’, then I suppose Natalie Maines’ remarks before a London audience last week should come as no surprise. The ditsy blonde centerpiece of the country music trio known as The Dixie Chicks lambasted President Bush by shamelessly pandering to the anti-war crowd, “Just so you know [wink, wink; nudge, nudge], we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas."
Well, Ms. Maines, we’re ashamed you’re from America! And Texas is very, very ashamed of you.

As if on cue, these comments sent feathers flying in the country-music coop, prompting the offending Chick to post a clarification “statement” (chicken-squawk for “apology”) on her website: “As a concerned American citizen, I apologize to President Bush because my remark was disrespectful. I feel that whoever holds that office should be treated with the utmost respect.”

Ms. Maines went on to observe, too late, “We are currently in Europe and witnessing a huge anti-American sentiment as a result of the perceived [emphasis mine] rush to war . . . . I love my country. I am a proud American.”

Well, maybe so—but is adding to that anti-American sentiment the proper way for a “proud American” to address it? With all due respect, her behavior on that London stage was neither proud nor American.

Apology or no, the furor, rightly, rages. Country music great Travis Tritt had his own bone to pick with this particular Dixie Chick: "I think the comments were made primarily because it was in front of an audience that agreed with them. But I think if you make those statements over there versus over here it is sort of cowardly and I think it was a cheap shot."

And Tritt astutely adjudged the popular sentiment prevailing these days stateside about such celebrity “punditry”—i.e., that most of these beaky entertainers only end up embarrassing themselves (and us) by coming off as “half-cocked,” and by giving the impression, rightly or wrongly, that they are in fact anti-American. And worse still, their treacly chicken-bock trickle persuades foreigners we all feel the way they do. And nothing could be further from the truth.

Tritt also advises us on how to get even: "The best way to get an entertainer's attention is to hit them in their pocketbooks," he said. Cha-ching.

And so, in tandem with Tritt’s truism, it would seem the chickens are coming home to roost: Dixie is no longer whistling along! Country music radio stations throughout the bubba belt are plucking The Chicks’ songs, one by one, from their playlists; and, in Ms. Maines’ shame-stricken home state, a defiant mob, some 200-strong, brazenly took to the streets—faces red with anger, not with humiliation—to riot, tractordozing the trio’s CDs.

Alas: this chicken is now getting her axe in the backside—right where her wallet goes. Our fowl-mouthed Ms. Natalie (that’s French, isn’t it?) would do well to remember: the pockets from whence she feeds are filled with more than mere chicken-corn. Take away these rich grains and—Voila!—we have this dippy chick rather suddenly, and alarmingly, crying, “Fowl!”

The bottom line: Natalie Maines of The Dixie Chicks got too big for her tarty Tex-ass britches. She reckoned she had outgrown the humble brood that just three years ago laid her like a platinum egg. This created a false sense of security in her, and it was this twiggy conceit that tweaked her into turning her back on the very people who had made her European podium available to her in the first place. She chose, foolishly, to ally herself with the losing team—the tony, fair-weather West End set, for whom chicks are golden geese.

Wrong choice. And now, with her popularity going to seed, Ms. Maines is learning, first-claw, what Saddam Hussein soon will: that payback, like war, is hell—one which respects no living thing, be it a god, a general, a dictator, or a biddy!

The newly-contrite chick offered this scratchy defense: “I feel the President is ignoring the opinions of many in the U.S. and alienating the rest of the world.” Funny. That’s just what she did. She ignored the opinions of many in the U.S. (principally in the southern U.S.), and worse, she alienated her own audience—all in someone else’s sandbox!

Clearly, hard-core country music fans, themselves hard-core patriots with deep roots in Texas soil, don’t want to hear another peep out of her.

And into this muck-raked dirt I dare, devoid of any shame whatsoever, scratch my name and plant my own kernel: stupid clucking (c)hick. She should stick to what she knows—rednecks named Earl.

Goodbye . . . Natalie. (Or should that be “au revoire?”)



To: calgal who wrote (5107)3/24/2003 12:43:35 AM
From: calgal  Respond to of 8683
 
This a long article, but worth reading.

Peter's Peace Platoon
ABC's Crusade Against "Arrogant" American Power


URL:http://www.mediaresearch.org/SpecialReports/2003/peter03182003.asp

by Tim Graham
Director of Media Analyis

In times of war, the media grow skeptical of the American government’s role in controlling the flow of information. But the American people are also concerned about the media’s control of the flow of information. Will they act as a neutral observers, devoted to balance and accuracy? Or will they play an activist’s role in undermining our government’s effectiveness in waging war?



To: calgal who wrote (5107)3/24/2003 12:58:02 AM
From: calgal  Respond to of 8683
 
PEGGY NOONAN
Eyes on the Prize
Iraq's liberation will be the biggest good thing to happen since 9/11.

Monday, March 24, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST

So far so good. The war has begun, and the world hasn't ended (alarmists, pessimists and prophets on left and right please note). Saddam Hussein may be hurt or dead. And so, on to Baghdad.

An old song from the American civil rights is on my mind and seems on point. It's about how far the movement had come and would go as long as all involved remained focused, in spite of setbacks, on the new day that was coming. "Keep your eyes on the prize, oh Lord, oh Lord," went the refrain.

That's what the coming week is about. As we become, inevitably, bogged down and fogged down by the dailyness and messiness of war, we should keep our eyes on the prize. One senses it is going to be bigger than we think.

We are about to startle and reorder the world. We are going to win this thing, and in the winning of it we are going to reinspire civilized people across the globe. We're going to give the world a lift.

This is what the American victory in Iraq is going to mean:
It is going to mean, first, that something good happened. This sounds small but is huge. The West has been depressed since Sept. 11, 2001. It has been torn, riven. It has been a difficult time. The coming victory is going to be the biggest good thing that has happened in the world, the West and the United States since the twin towers fell.

The deeper meaning there is that we are witnessing a triumph of activism over fatalism. Victory will remind the world that faith and effort trump ennui and despair. It will demonstrate to the civilized world that the good do not have to see themselves as at the inevitable mercy of barbarians. It will demonstrate that we are not part of a long and unstoppable slide, that we can move forward and win progress, that we don't have to cower in blue suits behind the Security Council desk. We can straighten up, join together and make things better.

An American victory is going to remind the world, too, that while many have tended to see terror states and terror groups as talented, disciplined and competent, they are not, always. The reigning Iraqi claque has been revealed, or so it seems, to be what many of us hoped it was: a house of cards. It is not bad for the world to see it collapse.

Another thing, and a crucially important one. The United States is showing to the world, to its friends and foes, that it will pay a high price to make the world better. We will put it all on the line. This country is, still, the place that will take responsibility when no one else will. In this our entire country is like the firemen of 9/11 who looked up, saw the burning towers and charged. In the past few days, weeks and months, America charged. It has a lot to be proud of. (Being America it will soon be beating itself up again, but it should take some time over the next few weeks to feel the healthy pride it's earned.)

The American president has, meanwhile, demonstrated to the entire world that he is neither a bombastic naïf nor a reckless cowboy but, in fact, another kind of American stereotype: the steely-eyed rocket man. Don't tread on him. It is good for the world that it see him as he is. As for leadership style, remember Jimmy Carter micromanaging the failed hostage rescue mission in 1980? This president was told Wednesday night we may have to move early to take advantage of potentially key targets that had presented themselves. Bush said, "Let's go." It takes guts and judgment to trust others who know how to do their jobs.
The American victory will mean that the United States has removed a great and serious threat to the innocent people of the world. An evil man who was gathering to himself weapons of mass destruction was, is, a danger to the world. And so, with the successful prosecution of the war, the world will be safer.

We will have helped the Mideast become more stable. There were those who warned that invading Iraq would lead to instability in the Mideast, to which the only response was: lead to? The Mideast was instable. Saddam was part of that instability. His removal opens up the possibility of stability.

With Iraq taken care of the United States will be able to move with enhanced strength toward an Arab-Israeli peace that might last. There are those who say Mr. Bush cannot move forcefully here because his base is composed in part of Christian Evangelicals deeply enamored of Israel. And so it is. But with victory in Baghdad Mr. Bush's base widens, and it will damage him not at all either in the world or domestically to come out strong and do what needs to be done.

And, finally, victory in Iraq means this: every terror state and terror group is more than ever on notice and newly aware that the West does not exist to play victim.

A victory in Iraq is about to enhance America's stature in the world. America deserves it. Because of all the powerful countries in the world, it is the most trustworthy, reliable and constructive.
Soon this war will be over. It was hard getting there, hard doing it and there will no doubt be hard going. But it will be over, and we won't come back from hell with empty hands. We will have won a great deal. In the next week and weeks it will be good to keep that in mind, and keep our eyes on the prize.

We have 2.7 million members of the active and reserve American armed forces today. The world owes a great deal to America, and America owes a great deal to them, and not only because of their courage but because of their faith in us. And they have faith in us, and in this place we all live in, this great country, or else they would never risk their lives for us. Which leaves us humbled, and wishing we could say to them what the world should be saying to the country they represent: Thank you.

Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal. Her most recent book, "When Character Was King: A Story of Ronald Reagan," is published by Viking Penguin. You can buy it from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Mondays.



To: calgal who wrote (5107)3/24/2003 12:58:33 AM
From: calgal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 8683
 
U.S. dismayed as Turkish troops pour into northern Iraq

URL:http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_3.html



To: calgal who wrote (5107)3/24/2003 12:59:20 AM
From: calgal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 8683
 
Michael Moore booed as he slams Iraq war at Oscars
1 hour, 51 minutes ago

HOLLYWOOD (AFP) - Famed US documentary maker Michael Moore (news) used his win of an Oscar to launch a violent attack on US President George W. Bush (news - web sites) and war in Iraq (news - web sites) amid loud boos from the audience.




"We live in fictitious times," he said when picking up the award for best documentary for his anti-gun film "Bowling for Columbine."

"We live in a time with fictitious election results that elect fictitious presidents. We live in a time when we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons.

"We are against this war Mr Bush. Shame on you. Shame on you!," he said to loud boos from an of 3,500 including most of Hollywood's top stars.

When he went backstage at Hollywood's Kodak Theatre to face reporters, Moore was unapologetic for his outburst.

"I'm an American, and you don't leave your citizenship when you enter the doors of the Kodak Theater. What's great about this country is that you can speak your mind," he said.

He said that, far from being appalled, many people in the audience stood up to applaud him.

"I say tonight I put America in a good light," he said praising the decision to push ahead with the Oscars (news - web sites) despite the war raging in the Middle East.

"I showed how vital it is to have free speech in our country and all Americans have the right to stand up for what they believe in," he said.

URL:http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030324/en_afp/oscar_war_iraq_moore_1