The music industy vs. the war [Archive] - Matador Records Bulletin Board

jt. r

03-16-2003, 10:10 AM

this issue for me boils down to a real test of democracy (even moreso than a stolen election).
first, it appears that the world will be getting this war, possibly sooner than later. it will be the debut of a bomb as horrific as a nuclear weapon, in the guise of conventional weapons. please welcome the new replacement for the "antiquated" daisy cutter: MOAB. even if we're promised a short war, the anglos of evil will cut a canyon into iraqi dirt with this bomb.
secondly, even if there had been successful opposition, viz. stopping the war before it began, it would do little to stop the ongoing campaigns in the phillipines (civilize 'em with a krag? channeling mckinley!) or afghanistan, neither of which will produce a satisfactory result (osama bin laden's head or say the liberation of women in afghanistan). instead two new outposts for the american empire will be wide open once again. however, had demonstrators stopped the war, what would be next? it's disappointing to see so many mobilized people put down their placards when there are so many things to bring to a national (and international) debate.
finally, it seems that this war will produce precisely the result any politician would like: the maintenance of the status quo. this is why so many democrats are on board, either explicitly or tacitly. any time new politically attentive "publics" are created, it shakes up existing constituencies which most politicians can't fathom because they spend so much time at fundraising dinners. because these newly mobilized youth will be frustrated at this loss, it's likely that they will give up on politics altogether. this apathy is a known end product that's anticipated on all sides.
but did i mention that the make up are really entertaining, even on your home stereo?
the saddest part for budding liberals/progressives/leftists is the enthusiasm they have for each "resolution" passed in a city, etc. that new york passed one such resolution is impressive and should be applauded, but municipal gov'ts have so little power since they're power comes from the state charter. so i guess it would be more interesting if say illinois passed a resolution, or short of that, that any resolution from a local union to a city council meant that people would take the streets and occupy them.
if you get a chance, check out how your parents (or maybe you yourself) fell short in the late '60's by seeing Chris Marker's excellent film about the rise and fall of the New Left (oh, don't worry, they're still writing for The Nation [maybe my next article will convince the proletariat of something]) in The Grin Without a Cat.
/screed

bitterfruit

03-16-2003, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by tinobeat
fun facts I learned tonight:

French Toast is named such because the guy who invented it (an American) had the surname "French," and has nothing to do with France.

French Fries are actually Belgian.

you know this country's in deep deep shit when I vocally support the Dixie Chicks.

I sincerely believe that when this adminstration goes to war it'll fuck up something horrible, and at the very least it will go down in history with a dark motherfucking mark of absolute shame on it.

Speaking of French Fries and the Belgique, if you're in NYC you've got to try a little joint called "Pomme Frites." Rocks ass.

The Dixie Chick who made the major Texas fuck up apologized to the President after radio stations stopped playing their shit. So though I agreed with her earlier comments, she's officially made it to the "I hate them" list.

War won't be the only thing this administration will have been known to fuck up. How about civil rights?

Ladt

03-16-2003, 10:41 AM

Let's just hope musicians keep moaning about the iminent war, that's gonna stop messers Bush and Blair. "Oh, chris from Coldplay said we shouldn't go to war, we should definitely listen to someone from a middle-of-the-road band." I can imagine it now.....

bitterfruit

03-16-2003, 11:21 AM

Bush: "Ted Nugent said to turn I-raq into a big sheet of glass and then shoot a flaming arrow at the next State of the Union address."

Blair: "But Elton says that war might be bad."

Chirac: "Stereolab c'est bonne."

Gerard

03-16-2003, 12:34 PM

re : Matador's position

this is a great question.

Seeing as Matador is owned by more than one person, is staffed by many more and also represents a large number of musicians with varying opinions, sensibilities, etc., it is difficult to speak in a unified voice about a subject as important as this.

That said, I don't think I would be incorrect in saying the vast majority of us at the record label (musicians and bizzy people combined) are not in favor of a U.S. attack on Iraq. Merely because the majority of said group feel a certain way doesn't make their opinion any more or less valid than anyone else's, and if anybody at the company would like to state their opposition-to-the-opposition, this is as good a forum as any (though perhaps not as good a forum as any for an actual discussion of the issues at stake. Given what's happening at the moment, I'll grant you that there are things more worthy of debate than the merits of the Entrance album...though perhaps there are more appropriate places).

re : Dixie Chicks. I was right there with her until the apology. What's up with these public apologies?

On the other hand, for Moby or Mogwai or 3D or Damon Albarn to speak out against the war is hardly likely to alienate a large percentage of their fan base (which doesn't make their doing so any less important). For an artist like the Dixie Chicks (and I apologize in advance for stereotyping their audience) it seems tantamount to career suicide. So sick props to the Dixie Chicks (though not their unlistenable music) for having the courage to say "boo"...especially whilst in a foreign country where the prevailing image of the USA as rapist-of-the-planet is reinforced daily.

GC

bitterfruit

03-16-2003, 02:13 PM

I was actually impressed that she had the guts to say something so out of line with the "Don't Mess with Texas" mantra.

She shouldn't have apologized. She should have continued it and furthered her statement about being embarassed that Bush was from Texas with something like "and his daughters are a couple of drunk whores."

It would not have been appropriate, but it would have been amusing.

Gerard

03-16-2003, 02:58 PM

I harbor no affection for our unelected President but calling his daughters "drunk whores" is really outta line. They like a drink --- so do most people their age. And there's really no excuse for calling women you don't know "whores", even if their father is a putz.

Finally, to quote that great man of letters, Boy George, "war is stupid and people are stupid."

ka-boom!
GC

bitterfruit

03-16-2003, 05:08 PM

I know, I know. I just wanted to see the Dixie Chick take it one step further and really stick it to them, rather than apologize.

Now she just looks like a twit.

pabost

03-17-2003, 12:27 AM

Were the Dixie Chicks embarassed by George W. when they played his gubernatorial inaugaration? Maybe that's not a fair shot, but should we even give a care what they, P. Diddy, or Fred Durst have to say about this proposed war. I'm endlessly tired of hearing celebrities opinions, especially when they so harshly demonize their opponents to the point of making them National Socialists. If your music or public life hasn't always been inextricably tied to politics or social issues, I really don't care what you have to say. To me, it's just marketing.

And the fact that people do really believe (not to say that you do Gerard) that simplistic line, "War is stupid and people are stupid," makes me realize that it's not only irrational republicans who see the world in black and white.

This from someone who thinks they are quite listenable . . .

tinobeat

03-17-2003, 03:29 AM

The left is as full of shit as the right, but right now I agree with the basic ideals the left is holding on to in terms of this war that hasn't happened yet.

I've been to a lot of protests over this war, because I think its important to have a visible throng of opposition, but I have to say I've been thoroughly frustrated by how much the protesters miss the point. "No Blood For Oil" and the countless other trite condensations of ideas into one sentence only make us who are opposed to American aggresion seem like single-minded idiots, and I'd rather keep that characterization on right wing windbags like Bill O'Reilly.

The reasons to oppose the war are many, in my view, but none of them can be signified in tidy catchphrases.

I disagree, however, that people shouldn't care about what celebrities have to say. Unfortunately Fred Durst's anti-war message was mushmouthed to the point that it made Clint Black's pro-war screed sound downright civilized. But these are visible people, and everyone has a right to make their views known as much as possible, and if visible people use their visibility to state their opinion, then more power to them. I respect Clint Black for writing his song, though I think its message is basically garbage. But he understands that with his position, he can express his views and they'll not only represent the views of a certain population, but they'll go further.

I think the whole concept of calling anyone you disagree with a Nazi is just plain immature and irresponsible, simply because it clouds the details of their offense and just blankets them with this stigma associated with one of the darkest moments in modern history.

But regardless, if there's a celebrity who wants to make their views known, god bless them, especially if they know they'll alienate a huge majority of their audience.

Nothing is simple, and anybody who says so is selling you something. Opposition to this silly act of pre-emptive aggression should be detailed and powerful, not made up of easily-dismissable slogans.

I went to a candlelight vigil in Davis Sq. in Somerville tonight and about 1000 people showed up, and what made it a success was the tremendous silence. Any one of those people could have been chanting silliness, but the silence showed that there was 1000 people who thought somethign was very wrong, and it was too much to put into words.

Gerard

03-17-2003, 12:05 PM

"If your music or public life hasn't always been inextricably tied to politics or social issues, I really don't care what you have to say."

fair enough but even those who were previous apolitical or god forbid, voted for the wrong guy, have a right to either change their minds or speak out. Without rehashing the artistic merits of the Dixie Chicks, Natalie's comments about George W. struck me as anything _but_ marketing. If Mogwai or Michael Stipe or Tim Robbins protest the war, most of their fans aren't likely to be outraged. If news reports are accurate, you can already see that the Dixie Chicks had a lot more to lose and are currently paying a heavy price for bumming out their constituency.

blanca

03-17-2003, 02:41 PM

I think it takes some real guts these days to speak your mind about the war. It has suddenly become unpatriotic to say that you dont agree with what is going on. That goes against what I thought we were all about.

Although some musicians have spoken up about it - for the most part- the music industry has been pretty silent. I dont like the Dixie Chicks (how dare they think they could do Landslide better) but geez, you gotta give em some credit for at least having an opinion. So many people are really apathetic about the fact that we are going to war for reasons that are still unclear to me and that you can get yourself arrested for wearing a peace t-shirt in a public place.

hstencil

03-17-2003, 04:06 PM

tell me about it. Some knucklehead fireman tried to start a fight with me in a bar the other week because I'm against the war, and therefore must "support Saddam."

Why oh why did we ever call these guys "heroes?" I mean, aside from the ones who actually died?

johansen smith

03-17-2003, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by hstencil

Why oh why did we ever call these guys "heroes?" I mean, aside from the ones who actually died?

proabably because their job is to save lives.

hstencil

03-17-2003, 04:18 PM

but while they're not on the job, they're not fucking heroes for berating someone whose opinion they asked for!

johansen smith

03-17-2003, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by hstencil
but while they're not on the job, they're not fucking heroes for berating someone whose opinion they asked for!

well, agreed.

blanca

03-17-2003, 04:24 PM

Just cause you are a fireman doesnt mean you are noble or are intelligent. What a putz that guy was to say that to you. I mean, if some one has an intelligent justification - I want to hear it - but so far all of the justifications go toward deterring terrorism and i think war will breed hate and hate is what creates terrorists.

jt. r

03-20-2003, 05:41 PM

someone must have forwarded the anti-bush statement to their message board, since it seems that the bashing began yesterday.
it's pretty clear that she shouldn't have retracted, since retractions don't generally have as much force.
of course, most folks probably don't pay attention to their favorite bands in the same way those of us who frequent certain label message boards do.
the funniest part of it is watching them destroy 17-20 dollar cds that they bought themselves. i bet that many of them will regret it later when they really want to hear fleetwood mac warmed over.

blanca

03-21-2003, 04:17 PM

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/spoon/message/3109

I guess some people just do not like other people to have an opinion.

yovan

03-26-2003, 10:37 PM

Just a quick addition to this subject since I do deal with this on a daily basis at work. Protests and the right to do so are fundamental to what this nation was built upon. That being said and basicially agreed upon by rational people, I do find it strange peace protesters are not protesting against atrocities being committed by Hussein as well (i.e. dressing up as US soldiers and killing defectors, violations of the Geneva Convention, and so forth).

I know this is not the best place to take up claims of this sort but I am intrigued by earlier comments and would love feedback on the issue. My contention is most (not all) "peace" protests degenerate into an anti-Bush rally without any clear, consistent objective in mind.

bitterfruit

03-27-2003, 12:53 AM

Should we really be surprised that the Iraqi soldiers are willing to break convention and do things like dress up like civilians? Is this really that much worse than a Tomahawk missile or war at all?

It's all equally evil.

tinobeat

03-27-2003, 02:42 AM

There's some pretty great discussion about this whole mess over here (http://forum.onecenter.com/allahakbar).

That being said, I'll pipe in with some thoughts about this "who's fighting dirty" thing:

Saddam's forces are fighting dirty, there's no question. Clearly as they are under attack from a HUGELY more powerful army, its reprehensible but understandable that they'd defend themselves in a way that will make it as difficult for US troops to fight as possible. This IS war, after all.

There was an article on CNN.com today about how evidence is surfacing that the American soldiers who were executed were murdered as they were surrendering, which is truly awful. One thing we haven't heard about and will possibly never know is how many of the hundreds of Iraqi soldiers killed while "surrendering" were actually surrendering and how many were pretending to do so with the intent to ambush at the last minute. Remember, this was a huge problem in Vietnam, with the VC pretending to be civilians and then attacking Americans unwilling to kill civilians.

I have immense pity for the American soldiers who were executed while surrendering. But this is war, and though ol' Rummy and his goons have been bragging about how quick and surgical this operation could be, it just won't be. Combatants from both sides will be murdered as they surrender, because neither side is willing to take the risk that they may not really be surrendering. This has sunk to guerilla warfare, and that'll be dirty no matter which side you look at.

OK, back to the rock, sorry for the long post. I do sincerely invite you all over to the CONFLICT (http://forum.onecenter.com/allahakbar) board (apologies to Gerard and his zine from bygone days... don't sue, please!) if you're interested in taking part in what is mostly really fascinating discussions from both sides, so that we don't clog up the MataBoard with this stuff.

p_money

03-27-2003, 07:21 AM

its nice to see people talk about these issues in such a civilized manner. all the other lists/bbs i belong to are just plain mean.

anyway, i just wanted to make a quick, humble point..... while it is an artists (or anyones for that matter) right to speak their mind, i found that the way the dixie chick did it was just wrong. i question why she didnt say it on american soil first of all, i mean saying to the english doesnt really take much balls folks (no offense meant to our english brothers). secondly the wording just seems inappropriate to me. it just seems spiteful and rude instead of intelligent protesting. just like that micheal moore fellow at the oscars. terrible.

we all have the right to oppose or support this military action, but i think its much more classy and smart to do so in a polite matter, giving reasons instead of just being petulant. i know it sounds so silly and naive, but i thinks its true.

as a side note. just because florida screwed up the votes, well, that doesnt mean that it didnt still end up the right way. i think people call our prez "unelected" and such simply because they dont like him/his polotics and use the whole florida scandel as a spring-board for their dislike of ole w... just an opinion

tinobeat

03-27-2003, 10:19 AM

You make some good points, but I must rebut..

while it is an artists (or anyones for that matter) right to speak their mind, i found that the way the dixie chick did it was just wrong. i question why she didnt say it on american soil first of all, i mean saying to the english doesnt really take much balls folks (no offense meant to our english brothers). secondly the wording just seems inappropriate to me. it just seems spiteful and rude instead of intelligent protesting. just like that micheal moore fellow at the oscars. terrible.

I think Natalie Maines had more courage uttering those words than any other celebrity stand against Bush yet. If she had done it on US soil she would have suffered the IMMEDIATE backlash of her fan base on her person. Because remember, no police state is as good as one where the people police themselves. I agree that it wasn't polite, but compared to the right-wing zealots over on talk radio, anything is more polite.

I'm no big fan of Michael Moore's as he's a hair heavyhanded, but I applaud him for using the platform of the Oscars to say his piece. Someone saying "Go George" wouldn't be looked down on, so someone saying "No George" shouldn't be.

It would be wonderful if everyone could be polite, but sometimes there isn't much room. Christ knows I try to be polite, but sometimes the bullshit over there in Iraq makes me angry enough that its hard to imagine softening my words. I echo Michael Moore's sentiment of "Shame on George Bush." I don't see what's more impolite about that than the running insult of a presidency he's had.

as a side note. just because florida screwed up the votes, well, that doesnt mean that it didnt still end up the right way. i think people call our prez "unelected" and such simply because they dont like him/his polotics and use the whole florida scandel as a spring-board for their dislike of ole w... just an opinion

whoo boy! well, the "right" (read: preferable) way is up to discussion, and cannot be stated as a fact, because who knows what the world would be like with Gore in office. I dunno. Its useless to even speculate. But the truth of the matter is this: George W. Bush was NOT elected to the office of President by the People of the United States. Its just the truth. say what you will about the politics, the number of votes cast for Al Gore outnumbered the number of votes cast for GWBush. It was close, yes, but it wasn't a democratic victory.

Unfortunately, his track record since being placed into office has proven to me over and over again that he's a dangerous man to have running this country, and knowing that how he took office was shady at best only makes that all the more scary. I just hope real democracy prevail in 2004. If that means more Bush, then Lord help us, but at least lets see him get elected.

bitterfruit

03-27-2003, 11:11 AM

I can't decide which is worse: Iraqis who dress up as civilians and then attack US soldiers, "Death Cab's You Can Play...," or the good ole' boy system.

http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/030327/0825000776_1.html

Is it any coincidence that Halliburton is getting this contract in regards to oil fires in Iraq.

Does Ben Gibbard own any Halliburton stock? Hmm.

yovan

03-27-2003, 01:09 PM

Probably in direct response to UN unwillingness to back the war. Therefore why spread the wealth if we did all the work.

Interesting that I haven't heard it in the mainstream press yet however.. Maybe tonight...

yovan

03-27-2003, 01:19 PM

On a side note, I do distinguish a difference between fighting "dirty" and forcing civilians to take up arms by threatening their children or ambushing civilians who are surrendering to supposed American troops .

Yes, war is war. But, every story like this I hear strengthens my resolve that we are indeed doing the right thing.

Ladt

03-27-2003, 01:23 PM

On another side note, have you guys at matador considered cashing in on the unfortunate situation? I mean, Matador records presents WAR sounds like a promising concept. YOu could have 10 different remixes of "Nuclear War" by Yo La Tengo, Now TO WAR by GBV, He War by Cat power and many more. -

tinobeat

03-27-2003, 02:15 PM

as horrible and awful as Saddam and his goons are, I will never ever ever think its right of the US to invade another sovereign nation. I'm sorry.

Tell me, yovan, once we magically turn Iraq into a gleaming democracy, like Afghanistan (if you cover up the eye that sees all the warlords running that country), who are we going to feel vaguely threatened enough by to attack?

That anyone can support unprovoked invasion of another country is beyond me. And don't get all UN resolution on me, because we would have invaded Israel years ago if the US cared about UN resolutions. And no, despite what most americans have been fooled into thinking now, Iraq had zero to do with 9/11.

Is our "security" really going to come from invasions around the world?

yovan

03-27-2003, 09:22 PM

I guess this is the best way I can describe how I feel about this subject.

I work with a gentleman named Huyen who came to the United States from Vietnam. He is probably 30 years older than myself and I really didn't know much about him to tell you the truth. Well, one day we start a conversation which turns political. This was during the Afghanistan/9-11 raids. Huyen started to describe the situations he endured while he lived under communist rule in Vietnam. We ended up talking for over two hours.

Huyen and his family was rescued by American troops back then. His stories are ones of absolute horror. He now wonders why some people in the US would ever disagree with what those soldiers did. In his opinion, they saved his life.

So you ask why attack a sovereign nation? For people like Huyen.

tinobeat

03-27-2003, 09:37 PM

sure, sure, for people like Huyen.

I completely understand the "human interest" side of this, but I don't believe for a moment that we're there to "create democracy." And no, I don't think its oil. I think its about power. There's democratic nations that are anti-US. The US can't afford to have Iraq turn into a democracy that might oppose it, so its going to turn it into a "democracy."

To clarify, are you saying we should invade every country where people live under oppression? that's absurd! we should invade ourselves while we're at it then. That's not to say we have the same level of oppression as other places, jsut to defuse that bomb. But there are millions of people below the poverty level here and am economic system that's designed to keep them there.

Our economy and national sanity will not be able to handle what the administration says it has in store, which is preemptive military action against anyone we percieve as a threat. Its not some kind of glorious spread of democracy. Its a paranoid administration seeing threats where there might not be one, and squashing any inkling of a threat to maintain power.

Invasion of soveregn nations for "security" is another term for world domination, and we'd better be prepared to fight for an awful awful long time if that's what we're planning.

As for people like Huyen, I'm happy he got out of Vietnam. I'm sure there will be lovely stories from Iraq too.. and then Syria, and then Pakistan, and then who knows who else?

We are invading a country without provocation. No matter how you slice it, we are the aggressors. Are you willing to have the US become the aggressive police officer of the world?

bitterfruit

03-27-2003, 10:39 PM

Every country in Africa including South Africa should be invaded. It's the human interest thing to do. Wait, wait. Sudan first, Zimbabwe second. Nah. Make that S. Africa second since they have black folks in charge now!!

If it's the human interest thing to do, we would have subsidized drugs for the 1 out of 4 people in Zimbabwe that have AIDS. But why don't we? It's the same reason that we don't invade N. Korea. They don't have oil and they don't have Israel. I'm a big supporter of Israel and Jews in general----seriously no sarcasm intended, so don't get me wrong---but I have to call it like it is.

In other words, the US really doesn't care about the human interest of others unless it benefits her own interest in a fiscally enriching type of way.

onedeadjet

03-28-2003, 11:45 AM

Personally, I'm getting fed up with people railing against celebs who publicly denounce the war. "But we have to provide a unified front to the rest of the world," they whine. "They're insulting the soldiers who died by not supporting the war..."

sweet jesus.

Natalie Maines: I think it matters not a whit where she slammed Bush. More people know about it by word of mouth than actually saw it in person, so UK or US, what's the dif?

Michael Moore: Yes, the Oscars are broadcast wordwide. Subsequently, so was his little diatribe. I'm sorry if that doesn't represent you.

But Bush is also broadcast wordwide. His views don't represent mine.

Jerry Falwell on 60 Minutes aired worldwide. His views on Islam sure as hell don't correspond with mine.

I'm glad that there are some prominent Americans that are offsetting what I see as fighting words issued by prominent Americans.

I'm damn glad that America isn't appearing to the rest of the world as a simplistic and unified war machine.

Damn glad.

bitterfruit

03-28-2003, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by onedeadjet

But Bush is also broadcast wordwide. His views don't represent mine.

I thought you and I would never agree.

Originally posted by onedeadjet

I'm damn glad that America isn't appearing to the rest of the world as a simplistic and unified war machine.

Whoop. There it is. We disagree again. Unfortunately, our country is personified by our President and his often irrational foreign policy.

That's why we are in this position in the first place. The imperialistic nature of our foreign policy is what drives the Arab world's anger. Attacking Iraq only furthers this point.

onedeadjet

03-29-2003, 09:19 AM

Ahh. I misspoke. I left out my qualifier. I meant to say something more along the lines of 'With Moore and Maine's highly publicized dissent, America isn't appearing to be as much the unified war...'

jt. r

04-02-2003, 08:40 PM

since i started working a second job at a video rental store, i've been able to check out some decent pictures. sure, it doesn't compare to teaching at hunter college, but i got a master's degree for a peacetime economy, right?
regardless, much of what appears in godard's les carabiniers characterizes the current political situation: a distraction from the economy and a foolish price for all of us to pay. the sort of escalation, arms racing, and postwar contracting all go against the balance sheet that will aid most people-those earning less than 70,000 dollars per year.
on liberation: this is not a "liberation" from anything other than one, relatively stable tyrant to be replaced by several warlords who are more unpredictable and equally tyrannic. noting the un report on women in post taliban afghanistan, our brand of freedom doesn't always equal pro-equality regimes. i can't envision a world in which a conservative administration appoints a leader to its left, even modestly.
as more yellow ribbons go up on the homes in the neighborhood in which i live, i hope that those people have good fulfilling jobs. however, if they're unemployed, i will push paul pierson's dismantling the welfare state, a decent (if too moderate) account of where deficit spending pushed other public programs throughout the reagan/bush era, as well as surrender by michael meeropol (julius and ethel rosenberg's orphaned son) which details the hard economic underpinnings of the selfsame era.
right now i'm listening to matt lauer do a softcore interview with the whistleblower at enron. will anyone prosecute those bastards?!?
positively underemployed...

bitterfruit

04-02-2003, 09:01 PM

Criticism about senseless American foreign policy and what drives their decision making.

Ladt

04-03-2003, 11:40 AM

by the way Bitterfruit, I thought I'd pick you up on one point about North Korea- no they don't have oil, but they also don't have someone like Saddam Hussein in charge.

Noah

04-03-2003, 05:22 PM

They've got Kim Jong Il. And last I've heard, he was a pretty nutty guy.

bitterfruit

04-03-2003, 10:33 PM

Kim Jung Il is a crazy fucking bastard. He's worse than Saddam Hussein ever was. Gasing people is insane, but starving people is just vile.

North Korea is a bigger threat. That's what is so troublesome about this administration.

tinobeat

04-04-2003, 10:57 AM

but North Korea has nukes! it would be a *difficult* war. We only invade far far weaker countries for self-defense.

Besides, NK would have China on its side, and we don't want to bother our most-favored nation, do we? even though it oppresses its people and could stand a little "liberating," if you know what I mean?

I'd venture to say there's nothing *NOT* troublesome about this administration.

dola

04-04-2003, 09:37 PM

US Arms Group Heads to Lisbon (http://the-news.net/cgi-bin/story.pl?title=US%20arms%20group%20heads%20for%20L isbon&edition=697)

The Portugal News has been told by a reliable source that the Carlyle Group meeting in Lisbon will discuss the relationship between the Saudi Binladen Corporation (SBC) and Osama bin Laden. Many US officials claim that the SBC continues to finance his political activities, and has done so for many years. If true, this would place George Bush senior and his colleagues at the Carlyle Group in an embarrassing position. As managers of SBC’s financial investments they might well be accused of indirectly aiding and abetting the United States’ number one enemy.