Citizens Against Celebrity Pundits

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-03-27 11:19am

Back to the original point, if you're going to have celebrities stop preaching against war, you'll have to do the same for people like Bruce Willis and Sly Stalone who support the war. I read an article somewhere that said something about Sharon Ozbourne and Elton John holding a benefit dinner, and all the celebrities present but one (Stalone) spoke against the US and Brittish presence in Iraq. Liz Taylor was aslo on that list of anti-war celebs.

But let's not assume that anyone with some kind of sway on pop-culture is automatically abusing it. I mean, Danny Glover has been an activist for years and no one has ever questioned his use of celebrity to make certain issues float closer to the surface of pop-culture. In fact, people applaud him for it. And while some of his positions are a little too extreme even for me, I support his use of celebrity to make issues prominent in society. Papers wouldn't cover certain happenings in oppressed Africa if there weren't a snippit about Danny Glover in them.

I want to make this a bit clearer: I do not support celebrities who try to impose their opinions on others, nor do I support those who say they speak for the American people. NO ONE, celebrity or otherwise, can make such a claim. But I do support celebrities who use their fame to call attention to a certain subject, and maybe voice their opinion on that subject. Like Danny Glover does, even though his voice is often brazen and just left of Lenin.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-03-27 11:21am

Queeb Salaron wrote:Back to the original point, if you're going to have celebrities stop preaching against war, you'll have to do the same for people like Bruce Willis and Sly Stalone who support the war. I read an article somewhere that said something about Sharon Ozbourne and Elton John holding a benefit dinner, and all the celebrities present but one (Stalone) spoke against the US and Brittish presence in Iraq. Liz Taylor was aslo on that list of anti-war celebs.

But let's not assume that anyone with some kind of sway on pop-culture is automatically abusing it. I mean, Danny Glover has been an activist for years and no one has ever questioned his use of celebrity to make certain issues float closer to the surface of pop-culture. In fact, people applaud him for it. And while some of his positions are a little too extreme even for me, I support his use of celebrity to make issues prominent in society. Papers wouldn't cover certain happenings in oppressed Africa if there weren't a snippit about Danny Glover in them.

I want to make this a bit clearer: I do not support celebrities who try to impose their opinions on others, nor do I support those who say they speak for the American people. NO ONE, celebrity or otherwise, can make such a claim. But I do support celebrities who use their fame to call attention to a certain subject, and maybe voice their opinion on that subject. Like Danny Glover does, even though his voice is often brazen and just left of Lenin.

I think they should all stick to acting, singing, or whatever form of entertainment they provide.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-03-27 11:38am

jegs2 wrote: Who's Smarter?
by Cindy Osborne

Ya its all fun to make fun of celebs, but for any serious debate on the validity of their arguments, attack the celebrity's point not their education level. I was rather amused at seeing 'dropout' Janeane Garofelo cut through the 'educated' Tucker's stream of logical fallacies, on CNN Crossfire.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-03-27 11:49am

Zoink wrote:
jegs2 wrote: Who's Smarter?
by Cindy Osborne
Ya its all fun to make fun of celebs, but for any serious debate on the validity of their arguments, attack the celebrity's point not their education level. I was rather amused at seeing 'dropout' Janeane Garofelo cut through the 'educated' Tucker's stream of logical fallacies, on CNN Crossfire.

One or two entertainers may accidently say something that isn't galactically stupid, but then the likes of Barbara Streisand opens her pie hole and utters forth mind-numbing idiocy. Again, they should stick to their strengths -- entertaining the masses.

Post by **Kuja** » 2003-03-27 11:54am

Zoink wrote:Ya its all fun to make fun of celebs, but for any serious debate on the validity of their arguments, attack the celebrity's point not their education level.

Did you even see the point of the article?

The Hollywood group is at it again. Holding anti-war rallies, screaming about the Bush Administration, running ads in major newspapers, defaming the President and his Cabinet every chance they get, to anyone and everyone who will listen. They publicly defile them and call them names like "stupid," "morons," and "idiots." Jessica Lange went so far as to tell a crowd in Spain that she hates President Bush and is embarrassed to be an American.

So, just how ignorant are these people who are running the country?
Let's look at the biographies of these "stupid," "ignorant," "moronic"
leaders, and then at the celebrities who are castigating them:

When all a celbrity does is say "Bush is stupid." (See: Dixie Chicks) Do they have a real anti-war argument? No, they're saying Bush is stupid, nothing more. When one of these celebrities offers up a good plan for the future, I'll pay them respect. Untile then, they're just children going "Nana, you're stupid!"

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-03-27 12:12pm

Sam Or I wrote:He recieved his masters at Harvard, his Bachelor's at Yale. I do not know his GPA, and exactly what connection Did Bush Sr have at the time? In 1964 when GW went into college his father was not even a Senator then. He had just as many connections as the average "Rich" kid.

Please explain how an incompetent dylexic like Bush could possibly get into fucking Yale with a C-average in high school without better-than average connections.

Have you seen Condelezza Rices resume?? She is Awesome, I would like her to run in 2008. She holds a PHD and Bachelor's from Denver University in international studies, she earned her masters at Norte Dame. She earned it. She has many other "honorary degrees", but she did earn her PhD. Dr Rice was a teacher at Stanford university and won 2 of the highest teaching honors. Not that this matters for intelect but she is a painist, and a dancer, she grew up in Alabama (the red neck south) in 1954, and she is a virgin.

Powell Graduated with a masters at George Washington University while in the military. (No easy task), and it was not an Honorary degree.

Rumsfeld graduated from Princeton University in 1954 from a ROTC scholarship.

The list goes on.

Then why did you say that none of his appointees had graduated from a university but yet held Ph.D's?

So please show me some facts the President Bush is "stupid", what has he done to prove that he is "stupid"?

He's a fundamentalist bigot, for one. I'm fairly certain he's a creationist, and he thinks that there is a "bridge" between church and state. The man's a fucking idiot.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-03-27 12:22pm

I have a real problem when intelligence levels are trotted in as a counterpoint to political arguments particularly when it comes to "rights" and the right to speak in particular.

Now I KNOW what the point of the article and I agree with it, that they are a bunch of blithering idiots, BUT I am leery of any kind of linkage to intelligence and the right for people to be heard. The minute you get on that slippery slope you have to wonder when elitism will sneak in and we'll soon have thoughts of only the intelligent can vote, or only college educated should have a right to participate in government.

I reiterate that I KNOW what the article was about, I just wanted to add a word of caution, stupid, dumb, smart or brilliant we all should and must have an equal voice in this nation or its all for naught.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-03-27 12:27pm

While comparing the education and experience of these two groups, we should also remember that President Bush and his cabinet are briefed daily, even hourly, on the War on Terror and threats to our security. They are privy to information gathered around the world concerning the Middle East, the threats to America, the intentions of terrorists and terrorist-supporting governments. They are in constant communication with the CIA, the FBI, Interpol, NATO, The United Nations, our own military, and that of our allies around the world. We cannot simply believe that we have full knowledge of the threats because we watch CNN!! We cannot believe that we are in any way as informed as our leaders.

I'm not going to run through and comment on every paragraph in this stream of semiconscious conservative blathering, but this paragraph in particular caught my eye. It's basically saying that we should unquestionably follow our leaders because they're more informed than we are.

Bull-fucking-shit.

If Bush wants me to support him on this war, then he'd better damn well fucking tell me this critical information that he knows that no one else does that makes it a reasonable one. If he knows something crucial that makes the war worthwhile, then the rest of the population has the right to know it, as well. If he won't bother informing people of his reasons for doing things, then he shouldn't be expected to be taken seriously.

"Why should we go to war?"
"I can't tell you, but trust me, we should."

I'm glad that so many Americans out there consider this kind of argument persuasive.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-03-27 12:31pm

Durandal wrote:Please explain how an incompetent dylexic like Bush could possibly get into f*ng Yale with a C-average in high school without better-than average connections.

Hmmm, can't speak for how Bush got into Yale, though I'm certain his political and economic connections played a role (such is the way of life in a nation where those who pay more bucks get the better seats). As for me, I barely passed high school, not because I was stupid, but rather because I was a useless, ignorant teenager who felt he already knew everything and that high school was a huge waste of my time (ignorant and teenager often being synonymous). Hind-sight is 20/20, and only fter four years of military service did I see just how worthless a teenager I had been. I was accepted into a community college on probation (because of my piss-poor grades in HS), and I subsequently made all 'A,s' and went on to graduate college with a 3.75 GPA. The moral? For me it was mission focus and just plain growing up that led to eventual success -- and God's help, of course. Perhaps Bush too was a worthless teenager in need of flushing -- most are...

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-03-27 12:36pm

jegs2 wrote:
Durandal wrote:Please explain how an incompetent dylexic like Bush could possibly get into f*ng Yale with a C-average in high school without better-than average connections.

Hmmm, can't speak for how Bush got into Yale, though I'm certain his political and economic connections played a role (such is the way of life in a nation where those who pay more bucks get the better seats). As for me, I barely passed high school, not because I was stupid, but rather because I was a useless, ignorant teenager who felt he already knew everything and that high school was a huge waste of my time (ignorant and teenager often being synonymous). Hind-sight is 20/20, and only fter four years of military service did I see just how worthless a teenager I had been. I was accepted into a community college on probation (because of my piss-poor grades in HS), and I subsequently made all 'A,s' and went on to graduate college with a 3.75 GPA. The moral? For me it was mission focus and just plain growing up that led to eventual success -- and God's help, of course. Perhaps Bush too was a worthless teenager in need of flushing -- most are...

Except that Bush continued to get a C-average at university. He's still a useless, ignorant teenager.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-03-27 12:41pm

I think there has been a misunderstanding in this line.....

Sam I Am wrote:

I have no problem that celeberties stand up and voice thier opinions. I just find it very hypocritical when they call the president "dumb", when Mr. Bush Graduated from Harvard, and alot of his cabnet hold multiple PHD, while they themselves have not graduated college.

He starts out talking about the celeberties, then goes on to say the the administrations has various levels of degrees from various insitutions, then says that 'THEY' have not graduated college. I believe Sam I Am was refering to the celeberties by saying 'THEY' and not the various members of the administration. Or at least it is my interpitation, but I have seen a couple of posts that relate to what he said in this line. If I am wrong, perhaps Sam I Am will correct me.[/b]

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-03-27 01:20pm

IG-88E wrote: Did you even see the point of the article?

Yes.

It generalized the opinions of celebs into a straw man statement by implying they are uniformly of the opinion: Bush is wrong because Bush is stupid (in the sense of being uneducated). It then attacks this idea by comparing education levels. Needless to say they are able to defeat their staw man.

They fail (or refuse) to pick up on the fact that "stupid" or "idiot" is a label they are applying to describe the certain actions done by the President. From what I've heard, the basis for their arguments are not on the percieved education level of Bush, it's based on what they percieve as a correct/wrong course of action.

The article continues with an attack on the celebs themselves: "How dare
they pretend to know what is best for an entire nation!" The basis for this argument is apparantly their education level, and another generalization: "The ultimate irony is that many of these celebrities have made a shambles of their own lives, with drug abuse, alcoholism, numerous marriages and divorces, scrapes with the law, publicized temper tantrums, etc."

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-03-27 01:26pm

Zoink wrote:
IG-88E wrote: Did you even see the point of the article?
Yes.

It generalized the opinions of celebs into a straw man statement by implying they are uniformly of the opinion: Bush is wrong because Bush is stupid (in the sense of being uneducated). It then attacks this idea by comparing education levels. Needless to say they are able to defeat their staw man.

They fail (or refuse) to pick up on the fact that "stupid" or "idiot" is a label they are applying to describe the certain actions done by the President. From what I've heard, the basis for their arguments are not on the percieved education level of Bush, it's based on what they percieve as a correct/wrong course of action.

The article continues with an attack on the celebs themselves: "How dare
they pretend to know what is best for an entire nation!" The basis for this argument is apparantly their education level, and another generalization: "The ultimate irony is that many of these celebrities have made a shambles of their own lives, with drug abuse, alcoholism, numerous marriages and divorces, scrapes with the law, publicized temper tantrums, etc."

Hmm, good points, however, I have seen celebraties bring up Bush's GPA in both HS and college to set up their own strawmen, so that's a bit of the pot calling the kettle black. Don't have links, but I've seen it on TV. If I see links later, I'll paste em -- if someone else doesn't beat me to the punch.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-03-27 01:33pm

At the risk of, you know, applying logic to the situation, it doesn't irk me any if celebrities support or don't support the war. What irks me is these people who have no special knowledge demanding they know more than me, or these overpaid twits taking up time and places which aren't for politics and shoving politics in.

It's as simple as this. You tune in for the State Of The Union, you know you're getting pro-war propaganda. You tune in for the Oscars, you aren't going for politics, you're there to see overpaid people given little men. It's as simple and plain as not having Vs. threads in this forum.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-03-27 01:37pm

jegs2 wrote: Hmm, good points, however, I have seen celebraties bring up Bush's GPA in both HS and college to set up their own strawmen, so that's a bit of the pot calling the kettle black. Don't have links, but I've seen it on TV. If I see links later, I'll paste em -- if someone else doesn't beat me to the punch.

I'm sure they do, and if you find an example you can hammer them into the ground for it. Its only a problem when you generalize and negate all celeb opinions based on a few obvious idiots (which is what the article is trying to do).

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-03-27 01:43pm

SirNitram wrote: It's as simple as this. You tune in for the State Of The Union, you know you're getting pro-war propaganda. You tune in for the Oscars, you aren't going for politics, you're there to see overpaid people given little men. It's as simple and plain as not having Vs. threads in this forum.

Maybe if some of these people would participate in forums such as these, they could blow off their frustration with their gov't (valid or not), instead of destroying public property, or commandeering some TV show.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-03-27 01:45pm

Zoink wrote:
SirNitram wrote: It's as simple as this. You tune in for the State Of The Union, you know you're getting pro-war propaganda. You tune in for the Oscars, you aren't going for politics, you're there to see overpaid people given little men. It's as simple and plain as not having Vs. threads in this forum.
Maybe if some of these people would participate in forums such as these, they could blow off their frustration with their gov't (valid or not), instead of destroying public property, or commandeering some TV show.

That'd be nice, wouldn't it? But it won't happen.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-03-27 01:55pm

Zoink wrote:
SirNitram wrote: It's as simple as this. You tune in for the State Of The Union, you know you're getting pro-war propaganda. You tune in for the Oscars, you aren't going for politics, you're there to see overpaid people given little men. It's as simple and plain as not having Vs. threads in this forum.
Maybe if some of these people would participate in forums such as these, they could blow off their frustration with their gov't (valid or not), instead of destroying public property, or commandeering some TV show.

But would blowing off steam really solve anything? I mean, I've been blowing off steam since the first anti-war protest in DC (which was fucking amazing) and nothing's changed.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-03-27 01:58pm

Queeb Salaron wrote:
Zoink wrote:
SirNitram wrote: It's as simple as this. You tune in for the State Of The Union, you know you're getting pro-war propaganda. You tune in for the Oscars, you aren't going for politics, you're there to see overpaid people given little men. It's as simple and plain as not having Vs. threads in this forum.
Maybe if some of these people would participate in forums such as these, they could blow off their frustration with their gov't (valid or not), instead of destroying public property, or commandeering some TV show.
But would blowing off steam really solve anything? I mean, I've been blowing off steam since the first anti-war protest in DC (which was fucking amazing) and nothing's changed.

It'd stop them spreading their feces in places it doesn't belong, and destroying public property. Or are these basic courtesies not worth it if it doesn't change things radically?

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-03-27 02:05pm

Queeb Salaron wrote:But would blowing off steam really solve anything? I mean, I've been blowing off steam since the first anti-war protest in DC (which was f*ing amazing) and nothing's changed.

Sure it does. It makes folks feel better about themselves and makes them feel that they've been heard. For Liberals, that is very important -- to believe that others care. Not that Conservatives oppose that, but that's for another topic...

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-03-27 02:07pm

Queeb Salaron wrote: But would blowing off steam really solve anything? I mean, I've been blowing off steam since the first anti-war protest in DC (which was fucking amazing) and nothing's changed.

But many of these protests are hurtful to their cause. Some of these people have a need to feel like they did something. For example, destroying some war monument or commandeering the Oscars. These things only hurt their message. These people need to realise why they are doing this: they are trying to convince pro-war people that their message is right. Making yourself appear rash, irrational, spontaneous, emotional, etc, isn't going to convince anyone of anything.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-03-27 02:24pm

Zoink wrote:
Queeb Salaron wrote: But would blowing off steam really solve anything? I mean, I've been blowing off steam since the first anti-war protest in DC (which was fucking amazing) and nothing's changed.
But many of these protests are hurtful to their cause. Some of these people have a need to feel like they did something. For example, destroying some war monument or commandeering the Oscars. These things only hurt their message. These people need to realise why they are doing this: they are trying to convince pro-war people that their message is right. Making yourself appear rash, irrational, spontaneous, emotional, etc, isn't going to convince anyone of anything.

What I dislike is selective media coverage of protests. Now it's not so much of a problem, but I know that when they interviewed people from the first rally in DC, they took the most extreme "left-of-Lenin" types to put on the air. Socialists, Communists, even anarchists got air billing before the normal, logical, non-knee-jerk reactionaries. So we were all portrayed like that. And it sucks.

Even now, I believe that most celebrities are taking this anti-war protest to an unhealthy level. For example, it is possible to be anti-war without being anti-Bush. (I don't know why you would want to be pro-Bush, but I hear that there are one or two people out there...) Of course, by the same token, you can be pro-war and anti-Bush. So when that fucktard got up and spoke against Bush under the guise of all anti-war Americans, he represented a minority (I think) of American society. And because he was a prominent media figure, people will misinterpret that and lump the rest of the anti-war activists in with that kind of mentality.

Suck suck suck.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-03-27 02:43pm

Knife wrote:I think there has been a misunderstanding in this line.....

Sam I Am wrote:
I have no problem that celeberties stand up and voice thier opinions. I just find it very hypocritical when they call the president "dumb", when Mr. Bush Graduated from Harvard, and alot of his cabnet hold multiple PHD, while they themselves have not graduated college.
He starts out talking about the celeberties, then goes on to say the the administrations has various levels of degrees from various insitutions, then says that 'THEY' have not graduated college. I believe Sam I Am was refering to the celeberties by saying 'THEY' and not the various members of the administration. Or at least it is my interpitation, but I have seen a couple of posts that relate to what he said in this line. If I am wrong, perhaps Sam I Am will correct me.

Ah ... yes, now everything makes sense. Sorry for the misunderstanding, Sam I Am.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-03-28 12:38am

(This is a long one folks. Sorry about that, but I just couldn't make all the points I wanted to make without going into this much detail.)

This is, needless to say, a very controversial issue. On the one hand, we have people who assert that these celebrities are behaving unpatriotically for making all of these anti-war comments (some of them extremely strident). And on the other hand, we have people saying that those who accuse these celebrities are the real “unpatriots”, since they are trying to deny these celebrities their constitutionally guaranteed right to express any opinion they wish, and this free speech guarantee is one of the cornerstones of our democratic form of government. There is some validity to this second point of view. These liberal celebrities do have the absolute right to express their opinions, and no one in this country should want to see that right curtailed. I have read most of the posts in this thread, and I see that most of the people here are pretty inclined to defend the celebrities on this issue, even when some of them find particular celebrities’ remarks distasteful or even offensive (e.g. Michael Moore).

However there is something I think most of you have overlooked; at least I haven’t seen anyone here touch on it yet. Just because the celebrities are exercising their constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech does not mean that they should be immune from criticism, even censure, when they are behaving irresponsibly. That is what they are doing. They are behaving irresponsibly, and this is a serious matter, since responsibility is supposed to go hand in hand with freedom.

Now, why do I say they are behaving irresponsibly? There are two primary reasons. The first reason I believe these celebrities are behaving irresponsibly is the manner in which they express their criticism. It is so often not in the form of principled objection, or reasoned argument, but rather, is purely personal. Consider the Hollywood left during Clinton’s military adventures. Their silence was thunderous. Or if they did speak out, it was to support military force. Consider actor Mike Farrell. Right now he is a leading anti-war activist. Where did he stand on war when Clinton was in the White House sending our troops to Kosovo? He was all for it, saying: "I think it's appropriate for the international community in situations like this to intervene. I am in favor of an intervention." Well, why was it okay to intervene on behalf of Kosovars, but it is not okay to intervene in behalf of Kurds or Iraqis? By all indications, they are worse oppressed by Saddam than the Kosovars were by Milosevic. Saddam certainly has chalked up a far higher body count than Milosevic did.

Take singer Sheryl Crow as another example. She is appalled by George Bush's moves against Iraq, but she had no problem with Bill Clinton's intervention in the Balkans. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the singer accompanied Hillary Clinton on a USO tour to entertain U.S. troops in Bosnia. "Once over there, I felt extremely patriotic," Ms. Crow told a reporter that year. "Here are these people, from 18-year-olds to military veterans, enduring real duress for the cause of peace. I don't ever want to play for a regular audience again, only military folks who are starving for music." I think it’s safe to say that in addition to not understanding the actual meaning of the word duress, she will not be entertaining any U.S. troops on any USO tours anytime soon, her professed love of military personnel notwithstanding.

The irony is President Clinton's intervention in Kosovo was much less justifiable than is the current war on Iraq. President Bush cites both humanitarian concerns, and concerns over weapons of mass destruction. WMDs were not an issue in Kosovo or Bosnia; the rationale was exclusively humanitarian. In March of 1999, Clinton defended his actions, saying: "Our mission is clear, to demonstrate the seriousness of NATO's purpose, so that the Serbian leaders understand the imperative of reversing course, to deter an even bloodier offensive against innocent civilians in Kosovo, and if necessary, to seriously damage the Serbian military's capacity to harm the people of Kosovo. In short, if President Milosevic will not make peace, we will limit his ability to make war." Insert the words "Iraq" and "Saddam" and "the United Nations" in the above excerpt and you could have a speech that President Bush would be happy to give on Iraq. The difference is, you will not see any celebrities supporting it this time.

In fact, Clinton himself now cautions against going to war in Iraq, but he seems to disagree profoundly with somebody also named William Jefferson Clinton, who occupied the White House for eight years. In 1998, then President Clinton said: "What if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? ...Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal." Once again, the Hollywood left was perfectly willing to listen to this argument from Clinton, and nary a peep of dissent was heard from any of them. Let President Bush say the exact same thing and you get a whole gaggle of them shrieking what a warmonger he is.

Well, could it be because Bush is acting without the support of the U.N. or the rest of the “international community? ‘Fraid not. In 1999, the Clinton administration and our NATO allies decided to bomb Serbia (for 77 days) without even seeking U.N. approval, after it became clear that Russia would veto any proposal. This contrast with the supposedly aggressive and “unilateralist” Bush administration is especially odd when one considers that Saddam Hussein is far worse than Slobodan Milosevic, and that Iraq has left a long trail of violated Security Council resolutions, while there were none in Kosovo. Liberal Hollywood was deafeningly silent.

This is what really bothers me about these celebrity windbags. It’s what bothers a lot of Americans. Their stance is not based on noble idealism or pacifism. They were quite willing to support military interventions when Clinton was in office. They are blatantly, transparently, disgustingly hypocritical. The actor Ron Silver, in a debate with Bill Maher opined that if Clinton were still president, or if Gore were now president and either of them followed the exact same policy vis a vis Iraq that Bush is now following, most, if not all of these leftist celebrities would not be opposing military action to oust Saddam Hussein. Based on their lack of response when Clinton was sending our troops out, and when Clinton was in the White House advocating a tough stance against Saddam, I’m convinced he’s absolutely right. Hollywood celebs aren't antiwar, they just hate the president.

You can tell this is so by the form their protest takes. More often than not, it’s not a rationally stated argument opposing the war; it’s a personal attack against George W. Bush. When the Dixie Chicks’ lead singer Natalie Maines sounded off in London, she didn’t say they were against the war, and why. She said: “Just so you know, we’re ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas.” Or take actor Ed Harris as another example. At a pro-abortion rally he said: “We've got this guy in the White House who thinks he is a man . . . who projects himself as a man. Because he has a certain masculinity and he's a good old boy and he used to drink and he knows how to shoot a gun and drive a pickup truck . . . That's not the definition of a man god dammit!” And of course, there was Michael Moore’s Oscar night tirade: “We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elects a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons. Whether it's the fictition of duct tape or fictition of orange alerts we are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush, shame on you!” (Of course, it’s ironic that Moore said this, since he was, at the time, accepting an award for a fictitious documentary – he distorted and misrepresented so much of the evidence in that film it’s a propaganda piece worthy of Leni Riefenstahl… but I digress.)

None of this is reasoned argument. They never state a case for their point of view, they just carry out vicious personal attacks. Well, I’ve had enough. If they want to argue against the war, let them make a case for not going to war, rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks and appeals to emotion with their tired old 1960s bumper sticker slogans. And it would be nice if they applied their noble, idealistic standards uniformly, rather than just when there’s a Republican in office. That’s one reason they need to shut their fucking cockholsters.

The second, more serious reason is that they are undermining our government and encouraging its enemies abroad. Bear with me a moment.

Consider the ways in which one may achieve victory in war. First is a conventional military victory – you defeat your enemy decisively in a battle or series of battles until he is routed and no longer able to oppose your forces. This is how the Germans defeated France in both the Franco-Prussian War and World War Two. Obviously this is not within the capability of the Iraqi armed forces; their military is neither well enough equipped, nor well enough trained, nor well enough motivated even to withstand the U.S. and British forces, much less defeat them. Well, what about winning by attrition? You may not win any decisive battles, but you make the war so costly that he can simply no longer sustain his offensives and faces defeat. This is partly how the Germans lost on the Eastern Front during WWII. No, this option does not exist for the Iraqis any more than the first one did. A third way is to deprive the enemy of the means of waging war. You strike at his factories, oil fields, transportation facilities, etc. until his armies run out of supplies, ammo, and so forth. This was the strategy of the Western Allies in WWII when we tried to destroy Germany’s and Japan’s industrial capability by bombing. This option is not available to Saddam Hussein either. He has no means of destroying our capacity to wage war, except possibly by launching terrorist attacks, which will be pinpricks at best, entirely insufficient to achieve such a goal.

So what’s left?

There is a fourth option. It was not only clearly enunciated by the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam war, it was successfully implemented by them. Its success was repeated by the Afghans against the Soviet Union in the 1980s. This is the only option with a real hope of success available to the underdog in “asymmetrical warfare”. This option is to attack the enemy’s political will. It’s the only target you can hope to destroy when you are fighting a foe with vastly greater resources and capabilities. This strategy consists of prolonging the war as long as possible, inflicting as many casualties as possible, and using propaganda and guerrilla warfare to make the war so unpopular with the other side’s people, that they force their government to end the fighting. A corollary to this is to play on world opinion so that other countries will also put diplomatic pressure on your enemy to end the fighting. This is Saddam Hussein’s strategy. He knows it’s the only one that can possibly work for him. He has studied America’s defeat in Vietnam and the causes of it, and also looked at how the U.S. pulled out of Somalia after suffering a mere 18 deaths. Both Hussein and other enemies of ours, like Osama Bin Laden, conclude that we have no stomach for fighting anymore, and will not accept a high body count.

Now what does all this have to do with liberal American celebrities shooting their mouths off? Simple, they confirm that this strategy can work. When Saddam and his cronies see American celebrities agitating against this war, leading protests and demonstration marches, and making anti-war and anti-Bush comments, especially when they do so both at home and abroad, they see the light at the end of the tunnel. If only they can drag this war out, the Americans will lose heart. If they can make the war ugly and protracted and costly enough, the Yanks will pull out just like they did in Vietnam, and like they did even faster in Somalia. When they see the protests in the U.S. they hope to see the American people pressure Bush to end the war. When they see these celebrities playing up to anti-American sentiment abroad, like the Dixie Chicks in England, Jessica Lange in France, or Danny Glover and Harry Belafonte in Cuba, they hope to see the people and the governments of those countries apply diplomatic pressure on the United States to end the war. This motivates the Iraqi regime to hold on tighter, and try to stick it out longer. This makes it harder for us to end the war quickly and it costs lives. More of our servicemen will be killed because the Iraqis didn’t pack it in sooner.

You see, while we value freedom of speech, that freedom has to be tempered with responsibility. Our elected representatives are sent to Washington to represent the people, and to do the will of the people. When they, acting on behalf of the people, embark on a certain course, it is the duty of the people to abide by their decisions. That’s part of the social contract between government and the citizenry. If you don’t like what these men are doing in Washington, you hold them accountable at the ballot box come the next election. When you see the government preparing for a war you disapprove of, by all means lobby the government, write the president and your congressmen, express your views in public. But when the shooting starts, then the government has expressed the will of the majority. As a citizen you are now bound to abide by that decision. When you live in a democracy, you don’t get to opt out of the decisions you don’t like. “Majority rules” means you abide by the decisions of the majority. The polls show that most Americans support the President on this. Congress voted to give him the authorization to use military force. Through their elected representatives, the people have spoken. It’s now time to support the troops, or at least to keep silent and not undermine them.

There are times when we must stand united. The enemy must not see dissension in our ranks. War is one of those times. The Hollywood left had their chance to express their opposition before the shooting started, and the people have chosen to follow the president instead. And when it’s all over, they’ll have plenty more opportunity to speak their minds again; then let them criticize Bush till they’re blue in the face, but right now, we need to present a united front.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-03-28 03:30am

jegs2 wrote:Celebrities are good at providing entertainment to the masses. I wold recommend that they stick to that at which they excel instead of allowing stupidity to pour forth from their pie-holes.

So why was Reagan elected then?

Seriously though if we use that resoning, why should you, or any other serving or retired service type put forth their opinion on the war?.
Remember, no one make you listen to Barbara Streisand.