Sheryl Crow: No War! (unless it is a Clinton War)

[Queasy]

Link

Monday, Feb. 24, 2003 4:36 p.m. EST
Anti-War Activist Sheryl Crow Entertained Troops in Bosnia

Singer-turned-anti-war-activist Sheryl Crow deplores President Bush's plans to liberate the people of Iraq, but she was singing a different tune when President Clinton dispatched U.S. forces to Bosnia in the 1990s.

In fact, not only did Crow not protest when Clinton sent U.S. forces to the Balkans, she traveled to the region with then-first lady Hillary Clinton to show her support and joined a USO tour to entertain the troops.

"Once over there I felt extremely patriotic," Crow told USA Today in April 1996. "Here are these people, from 18-year-olds to military veterans, enduring real duress for the cause of peace."

The singer then gushed, "I don't ever want to play for a regular audience again, only military folks who are starving for music."

Crow was so supportive of the Clinton administration's decision to use military force in the Balkans that the Toronto Sun referred to her as "Hillary Clinton['s] sidekick in Bosnia."

The war-protesting songstress even penned a tune about what she saw. Dubbed "Redemption Day," the composition was "an anthem condemning America's apathy toward Bosnia," according to the Albany Times-Union.

 

[bozo1]

As if anyone cares what those actors think.

 

[squirrel dog]

She'll be eaten crow if those Iraq people use a model plane to desperse bio~toxins over Hollywood.

 

[morkinva]

You can't equate going into Bosnia with going into Iraq. One is for humanitarian reasons, and the other, despite what you believe, is for economic reasons.

And maybe her concern is that in forcing Iraq's hand, the remote plane with nerve gas scenario will be a self fulfulling prophecy.

edit>> besides, she's hot !

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: bozo1
As if anyone cares what those actors think.

I hate it when people have opinions.

 

[3L33T32003]

What kills me about posts like this is the unstated assumptions that:

1) Anything that Clinton did is wrong.
2) Anything that Bush does is right, even if he does the exact same thing that Clinton did.
3) Anyone who supports anything that Clinton did and does not support Bush is somehow un-American.

Funny how one's hatred for a guy 2 years out of office is so intense that they must continue to bring it up now.

Whenever I read stuff like this, Queasy, I think "OMG, another mouth breathing clone has cut and pasted something from a Right wing talking points email."

Wish people from the right would have an original thought once in a while.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: 3L33T32003
What kills me about posts like this is the unstated assumptions that:

1) Anything that Clinton did is wrong.
2) Anything that Bush does is right, even if he does the exact same thing that Clinton did.
3) Anyone who supports anything that Clinton did and does not support Bush is somehow un-American.

Funny how one's hatred for a guy 2 years out of office is so intense that they must continue to bring it up now.

Whenever I read stuff like this, Queasy, I think "OMG, another mouth breathing clone has cut and pasted something from a Right wing talking points email."

Wish people from the right would have an original thought once in a while.

You forgot

4. Everything Clinton did was right.
5. Everything Bush does is wrong.
6. I did not see anyone call Crow UnAmerican. I do not see anyone calling any protester unAmerican.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: 3L33T32003
What kills me about posts like this is the unstated assumptions that:

1) Anything that Clinton did is wrong.
2) Anything that Bush does is right, even if he does the exact same thing that Clinton did.
3) Anyone who supports anything that Clinton did and does not support Bush is somehow un-American.

Funny how one's hatred for a guy 2 years out of office is so intense that they must continue to bring it up now.

Whenever I read stuff like this, Queasy, I think "OMG, another mouth breathing clone has cut and pasted something from a Right wing talking points email."

Wish people from the right would have an original thought once in a while.

I'm not bashing Clinton, I'm bashing the Hollywood/liberal myrmidions whose opposition to the war seems to be based solely on the fact that there is a Republican in office instead of a Democrat so therefore anything he does must be bad for Mother Earth and Eviiiiil.

I'm just sick of the press that these celebrities get for their opposition to the war when their opposition is shallow and illogical IMO.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: 3L33T32003
What kills me about posts like this is the unstated assumptions that:

1) Anything that Clinton did is wrong.
2) Anything that Bush does is right, even if he does the exact same thing that Clinton did.
3) Anyone who supports anything that Clinton did and does not support Bush is somehow un-American.

Funny how one's hatred for a guy 2 years out of office is so intense that they must continue to bring it up now.

Whenever I read stuff like this, Queasy, I think "OMG, another mouth breathing clone has cut and pasted something from a Right wing talking points email."

You're the only one making assumptions. I didn't see anyone saying or implying anything that you said. Except for you, of course.
Whenever I see your nic, I immediately think, " Oh good, more jiz spittle spewing forth from the defender of all that is liberal or Clinton." You have joined the growing list of oligophrenics on this board who are to be ignored.

Wish people from the right would have an original thought once in a while.

You should try to use the two or three brain cells you have left and realize the OP was pointing out the hypocrisy of Ms. Crowe and it wasn't an attack on your hero.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: squirrel dog
She'll be eaten crow if those Iraq people use a model plane to desperse bio~toxins over Hollywood.

One can only hope...

 

[gump47371]

Go watch the video in the the blue box here. Sounds to me like Clinton could sue Bush for stealing his speech.

Only difference is that Bush has the balls to do something about it, and runs this country by what he thinks is right, not by wetting his finger and sticking it in the air.

Kind of makes you wonder, 5 years later, Hollywood "activists" completely switch their opinion on the same issue.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: 3L33T32003
What kills me about posts like this is the unstated assumptions that:

1) Anything that Clinton did is wrong.
2) Anything that Bush does is right, even if he does the exact same thing that Clinton did.
3) Anyone who supports anything that Clinton did and does not support Bush is somehow un-American.

Funny how one's hatred for a guy 2 years out of office is so intense that they must continue to bring it up now.

Whenever I read stuff like this, Queasy, I think "OMG, another mouth breathing clone has cut and pasted something from a Right wing talking points email."

Wish people from the right would have an original thought once in a while.

And everything Liberals on this forum are posting are from their own intellect... right...

 

[3L33T32003]

I'm not bashing Clinton, I'm bashing the Hollywood/liberal myrmidions whose opposition to the war seems to be based solely on the fact that there is a Republican in office instead of a Democrat so therefore anything he does must be bad for Mother Earth and Eviiiiil.

I'm just sick of the press that these celebrities get for their opposition to the war when their opposition is shallow and illogical IMO.

Puhlease. If the intention of the person who wrote this (I don't say YOU because I know you just cut and pasted this from somewhere) was NOT to bash Clinton, then Clinton would never have been mentioned in the paragraph. As stated by another poster, the comparison is not valid, we are talking apples (Clinton) and orangutangs (Bush) here. The propoganda could have been written any number of ways to not even include Clinton, but this method was chosen on purpose.

The reason why it was chosen on purpose is that the right needs to continually demonize Clinton to keep the spotlight off of the economy. Lord help them if the blind faithfull actually start thinking "hey, I have no job and the people in power are not helping me!!!"

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: gump47371
Go watch the video in the the blue box here. Sounds to me like Clinton could sue Bush for stealing his speech.

Only difference is that Bush has the balls to do something about it, and runs this country by what he thinks is right, not by wetting his finger and sticking it in the air.

Kind of makes you wonder, 5 years later, Hollywood "activists" completely switch their opinion on the same issue.

That wasn't a reference to Monica Lewinski, was it? :Q

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: 3L33T32003

I'm not bashing Clinton, I'm bashing the Hollywood/liberal myrmidions whose opposition to the war seems to be based solely on the fact that there is a Republican in office instead of a Democrat so therefore anything he does must be bad for Mother Earth and Eviiiiil.

I'm just sick of the press that these celebrities get for their opposition to the war when their opposition is shallow and illogical IMO.

Puhlease. If the intention of the person who wrote this (I don't say YOU because I know you just cut and pasted this from somewhere) was NOT to bash Clinton, then Clinton would never have been mentioned in the paragraph. As stated by another poster, the comparison is not valid, we are talking apples (Clinton) and orangutangs (Bush) here. The propoganda could have been written any number of ways to not even include Clinton, but this method was chosen on purpose.

The reason why it was chosen on purpose is that the right needs to continually demonize Clinton to keep the spotlight off of the economy. Lord help them if the blind faithfull actually start thinking "hey, I have no job and the people in power are not helping me!!!"

Well, you are obviously literate if you are able to type all of this so I'll assume your reading comprehension is not there. I challenge you now to cite specific examples in the piece above where Clinton was bashed. Go on, show me.

The piece doesn't bash Clinton at all. It states factually that Clinton sent troops to Bosnia in the 90s and that Crow traveled with Hilary during a USO tour. Again, where is the Clinton bashing in this piece? It isn't there....it is all about Crow's hypocrisy.

 

[3L33T32003]

The piece doesn't bash Clinton at all. It states factually that Clinton sent troops to Bosnia in the 90s and that Crow traveled with Hilary during a USO tour. Again, where is the Clinton bashing in this piece? It isn't there....it is all about Crow's hypocrisy.

There is a difference between explicit and implicit lanquage. How do I know this story is taking a swipe at Clinton?

LOOK AT THE SOURCE.

www.newsmax.com???


Puhhhh-lease.

 

[drewshin]

sometimes the best action is knowing when not to act.

is the world worse off because of the cumulative effects of george bush's actions? that is a definite yes.

and oh, our reasons to go into bosnia was nothing like the ones we have for going into iraq.

it's funny, right after 9/11 and still today conservatives were blaming clinton for not going after bin laden and iraq...but now they're making fun of actors who didn't protest his attacks of baghdad in 98, bosnia, etc....heh heh.

 

[T2T III]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: bozo1
As if anyone cares what those actors think.

I hate it when people have opinions.

Well, we all have opinions. It's when they become known that the trouble starts. 😉

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: 3L33T32003

The piece doesn't bash Clinton at all. It states factually that Clinton sent troops to Bosnia in the 90s and that Crow traveled with Hilary during a USO tour. Again, where is the Clinton bashing in this piece? It isn't there....it is all about Crow's hypocrisy.

There is a difference between explicit and implicit lanquage. How do I know this story is taking a swipe at Clinton?

LOOK AT THE SOURCE.

www.newsmax.com???


Puhhhh-lease.

And considering the fact that newsmax got this information from another news source such as AP or Reuters means what? That the information contained in the article is more or less factual?

You are as biased as you claim newsmax to be, if not more.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: bozo1
As if anyone cares what those actors think.

I hate hearing celebrity's political views. I really can't stand it.

 

[T2T III]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: 3L33T32003

I'm not bashing Clinton, I'm bashing the Hollywood/liberal myrmidions whose opposition to the war seems to be based solely on the fact that there is a Republican in office instead of a Democrat so therefore anything he does must be bad for Mother Earth and Eviiiiil.

I'm just sick of the press that these celebrities get for their opposition to the war when their opposition is shallow and illogical IMO.

Puhlease. If the intention of the person who wrote this (I don't say YOU because I know you just cut and pasted this from somewhere) was NOT to bash Clinton, then Clinton would never have been mentioned in the paragraph. As stated by another poster, the comparison is not valid, we are talking apples (Clinton) and orangutangs (Bush) here. The propoganda could have been written any number of ways to not even include Clinton, but this method was chosen on purpose.

The reason why it was chosen on purpose is that the right needs to continually demonize Clinton to keep the spotlight off of the economy. Lord help them if the blind faithfull actually start thinking "hey, I have no job and the people in power are not helping me!!!"

Well, you are obviously literate if you are able to type all of this so I'll assume your reading comprehension is not there. I challenge you now to cite specific examples in the piece above where Clinton was bashed. Go on, show me.

The piece doesn't bash Clinton at all. It states factually that Clinton sent troops to Bosnia in the 90s and that Crow traveled with Hilary during a USO tour. Again, where is the Clinton bashing in this piece? It isn't there....it is all about Crow's hypocrisy.

Queasy,

Thanks for setting the record straight on this one. Why is it that when Clinton's name is even mentioned, people assume that something negative is being said about him? It was just a simple comparison which showed the hypocrisy of Ms. Crow.

 

[3L33T32003]

Thanks for setting the record straight on this one. Why is it that when Clinton's name is even mentioned, people assume that something negative is being said about him? It was just a simple comparison which showed the hypocrisy of Ms. Crow.

I do not see where she is being a hypocrite. Unless you can show me where she thought Iraq I was a good thing, and now she thinks Iraq II is a bad thing, then you have no basis for comparison. There is a direct relationship between calling her a hypocrite and invoking Clinton, and if you cannot see this you are blind as well.

 

[gump47371]

Originally posted by: drewshin
sometimes the best action is knowing when not to act.

is the world worse off because of the cumulative effects of george bush's actions? that is a definite yes.

and oh, our reasons to go into bosnia was nothing like the ones we have for going into iraq.

it's funny, right after 9/11 and still today conservatives were blaming clinton for not going after bin laden and iraq...but now they're making fun of actors who didn't protest his attacks of baghdad in 98, bosnia, etc....heh heh.

I will agree with the bolded statement, somewhat. But I will also agree with the agruement that if Sheryl Crow wants "NO WAR", as the guitar strap said, then why wasn't she against it.

Let me go back to the bolded statement, and make the same arguement about Bosnia that Libs are making against Iraq.

"They were not hurting us. It is no skin off of our nose what goes on in their country, we shouldn't go sticking our nose into their affairs." The anti-war crowd keeps telling us that they haven't found anything, so we have no reason to attack. Yeah, he is a dictator, and his people starve and are tortured, but we have no right to just go around the world playing policeman, they say.

You feel that way, follow Alec Baldwin to Norway, or Greenland, or somewhere, where they don't take leadership of anything, and cower in fear because someone might not like what they are doing. :Q

This is the USA, and we will do what we believe is right. Don't like it? Too freakin' bad!!!!

 

[IGBT]

...thus the term "hollywood idiots".

 

[wyvrn]

I hate hearing celebrity's political views. I really can't stand it.

I don't hate or love them. The fact is, they are just people. They are welcome to their opinions, but that doesn't mean I am going to pay any more attention to them than the next guy on the street.