NEW YORK — The Dixie Chicks' Natalie Maines apologized for disrespecting President George W. Bush during a London concert in 2003. But now, she's taking it back.
"I don't feel that way anymore," she told Time magazine for its issue hitting newsstands Monday. "I don't feel he is owed any respect whatsoever."
I lump Ms Maines in with George Clooney, Alec Baldwin, Sean Penn, Dave Letterman, Madonna, Gwyneth Paltrow and all the other Hollywood morons who live under the delusion that we actually give a damn about what they think politically. Personally, I believe Ms Maines should focus on making music that doesn’t suck rather than open her blow-hole in regards to the President.
My point is this, either debate an issue with respect and civility or keep your mouth shut. We have enough people spouting hate without a second-rate country music singer adding to the noise. Regardless of your personal opinion, the President of the United States is ALWAYS owed respect. You can disagree with policy, yes, but disagreeing and disrespecting are two different things. It’s time for Ms Maines to retire to the rodeo and honky-tonk club scene.
10 comments:
If you thought the president (any president) were committing war crimes, would you still think they were owed respect? What if they had committed crimes - was Clinton owed respect when he committed perjury?
1) I don't remember her saying anything about war crimes or breaking the law. She said the President is not owed respect. I take issue with that because I think the President of the United States is, at the very least, owed respect. Disagree with him, accuse him, investigate...whatever. But he still deserves respect
2) Are you actually suggesting that Bush is guilty of war crimes? If so, what do you base this on and what proof do you have to offer? That's quite a serious accusation and if you're making such, I hope you can back it up.
As extreme as the Dixie Chicks may be, I feel that the TKA (Toby Keith Army) is equally as extreme on the OTHER side of the issue. I wonder how much money he has made singing about 9/11 and the war? Just how many different songs can you sing about the same thing?
Speaking of "second-rate country singers," Toby Keith should stick to songs about drinking, lost dogs, and women, and leave the politics to the politicians.
If you want to take the outspoken left-wing Dixie Chicks off of the radio, you need to get rid of the outspoken right-wingers too.
--Deano
Yes, I and millions of others think there is evidence that suggests Bush may be guilty of war crimes. Surely you haven't missed this? It's been in all the news (or as much as the "liberal" MSM carries, which isn't much).
Here:
http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/treaties.html
We are not bent out of shape because he's a republican. We're not just silly people who wish he wasn't our president. We are serious and sober, reasoning adults that think the evidence shows he's guilty of presiding over war crimes. I understand that you disagree with us - you may well think that the evidence doesn't support that notion. We disagree.
BUT, surely you understand that IF WE THINK the evidence supports the notion that he's a likely war criminal, THEN WE CANNOT offer him much respect, beyond the respect that we offer even our worst criminals?
I understand what you think, but I was just wanting to know how you defined war crimes and how Bush's actions fit into that definition. What constitutes war crimes to you? And how has Bush committed such acts? Be specific.
Invading a country unprovoked. Torture.
Bush has overseen both, depending upon your definition of "unprovoked" and "torture". We disagree on the point of whether Bush had legitimate cause to invade and whether or not what is happening in our prisons constitutes torture. I can make my case and you can make your case (and we have) and we disagree.
I don't know how to get around that. It's the way it is.
But for the millions of people who disagree with you, we don't do so for any spurious reasons but simply because we are convinced that this is what the factual evidence shows to be true.
And this is why I don't understand the venom directed towards those who think Bush is or MAY be a war criminal by his supporters. We're acting with a clean conscience based on the evidence as we see it and yet they repeated strawman assumptions is that we do it because we "hate Bush" or "hate the US" or some other misdirected supposition.
Disagree with us if you must but why not provide us the same respect that you claim is due the president?
By the way, has anyone found those pesky WMD's yet? Didn't think so..
--Deano
Dean,
the Husseins, Bin Ladens, Zharqawis and Jung Ils of the world love people like you. In fact, they COUNT on people like you and your naivety to keep us weak. They love you because you can say things like: "There were no WMDs", "Iran will never use nuclear weapons", "The UN should decide", "negotiate with North Korea", "Iraq was a mistake", and "terrorists would never attack us". You can say these things and actually believe them to be true. I wish I could do that. Maybe I wouldn't be so concerned about the problems we face. But I use a little more logic and reason than the average everyday progressive, and because of that I can't say those things.
When the planes hit the buildings and burst into flames, you choose to bury your head in the sand and hope the bad people go away..."Iraq is not a threat"...But I'm not willing to do that.
There were no WMDs?
Yeah, just keep telling yourself that.
Dan,
I understand that we disagree, but I find it interesting that under your definition of war crimes Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, FDR, JFK, Truman, Johnson, Churchill, Teddy Roosevelt, Ike, Patton, Omar Bradley, McArthur, Thatcher, Reagan, and Clinton would all be guilty of the same thing. So either your charge against Bush is partisan driven, or your willing to claim the same charges against all these other political and military leaders.
I have problems with all of the above, yes. The difference for most of them is they belong to history and there's limited use in judging history (except in an attempt to learn from it). But Reagan and Clinton's acts are certainly still current history, as are Bush's, and more pertinent to today.
But yes, Truman's bombing of two cities was a war crime. Period. Sherman's destruction of civilian lives and homes would rightly be considered war crimes. Johnson's lies to get us in to Viet Nam unprovoked was a criminal act.
Does that clear things up?
(and by the way, I liked "John the Author" better than "John the Patriot," as a title).
Post a Comment