3 Grammys for the Dixie Chicks!

Take *that* Toby Keith — ya punk-ass creep…

Damn, dig that Cliff, but there’s more sir!! Keith went on tour with draft dodger Ted Nugent who admitted in the Detroit Free Press of urinating and defecating in his pants for an entire week to avoid serving his country during the Vietnam war. Now he (Nugent)earns as much as $30,000 a night preaching about the Constitution, free speech and his respect for veterans. This while the true American warriors still suffering emotional and physical wounds 40 years later from the very war that the coward Nugent ran from are languishing in veterans hospitals across the country without a penny. All this happened when the Chicks were being vilified and Keith got away with his phony patriotism.

Biodun @ 19

Sort of as a complement to your quote of Feith above. Juan Cole in his February 10 comments noticed that Feith seems to want to have it both ways when it comes to the CIA.

BLITZER: There wasn’t the stockpiles. What about on the al Qaeda connection?

FEITH: On the al Qaeda connection, George Tenet on October 7th, 2002 wrote an unclassified letter to the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee laying out the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.

BLITZER: So you believed there was a connection?

FEITH: I believed George Tenet.

Oh, now he has blind faith in the CIA? I thought it was completely unreliable because of its “filters” and had to be contradicted by Abram Shulsky?

IT’s even worse than that! Tenet’s own open letter basically rejected most of the points that Feith was promoting as unsubstantiated or from questionable sources. And the material that Feith is referring to above he was “provided” to Tenet by a) phoney Iraqi “intelligence operatives” manufactured by Chalabi, and b) a tortured al Qaida member who “gave up” the story “that the Americans wanted” to stop being tortured.

These well-deserved giggles ocurred when they won the COUNTRY album of the year. Maines had just quoted the “great Simpsons — HA-ha!”.

They had just taken the highest honor for the category where they had been roundly snubbed and mocked and so I am certain that laugh felt GOOD!

It also explains why there were such dour expressions on some black cowboy hat wearers when the camera panned into the audience right after that. I imagine it must smart a little bit to make a bunch of money off of smearing the Chicks and then have your own PEERS vote them into the best album category.

Heh and snarkalicious!

Indeed. While the Grammy voters do not include Radio DJ’s, talk-show hosts, or Clearchannel Programmers…those that vote for the Country Awards are those that are involved directly in the music.

To be a nominating voter in a genre one has to have been involved in the production, arrangement, writing, orchestration, or performance of six commercially released tracks (or their equivalent) in that genre.

Basically those who really know about country music responded to the “book burners”.

BTW- I wonder if Bush had the terrorists who called in death threats to the Dixie Chicks investigated and prosecuted under the Patriot Act. Sure seems that these folks “hate us for our freedoms”!

Now I see where Team Libby’s going with all the reporters: Team Libby believes it’s an iron rule that reporters babble to each other about anything important, so if ONE reporter – Bob Woodward – heard about Wilson’s wife being a CIA analyst, ALL reporters MUST know, which means Pincus, which means Mitchell, which means, lo and behold, Tim Russert, therefore Libby could have heard the information from Russert as if it was new. (Yes, this relies on Russert being a perjurer and on Libby having a bad memory as to what his boss, the Vice President of the United States of America, told him about a hot button political issue dear to his own heart, but that’s how the theory reads to me.)

But, the fact that the reporters didn’t babble as thoroughly and completely as anticipated means that Libby’s defense looks implausibly thin. One thing I am wondering: did Libby find out about Armitage’s slip to Woodward and consciously decided to use “one reporter knows so all must know” as plausible deniability? And it just didn’t work like he wanted because the reporters didn’t babble like on a perfect flow chart?

Which raises the issue…if they all knew…then why did they all hold off to let Novak get the “scoop”.

And if it were common knowledge…why was it a “scoop” and suddenly create a firestorm of controversy at all?

What caught my eye was Juan Cole’s debunking of the lie about Iran supplying weapons that were killing our soldiers. Caught it at Steve G’s place.

http://www.thenewsblog.net/200…..audis.html

Yes, the Pentagon should be compelled to show precisely where these EPG attacks are occurring. Are they occurring in Sunni held areas in Baghdad (Haifa Street)? Are they occurring in the Sunni traingle in towns and cities under Sunni control?

How many cases? How do they explain that some Shiite bomber is infiltrating the Sunni-held areas, planting a bomb along streets in which US vehicles are patrolling, and then waiting around to detonate that bomb?

Boy! That’s very devious! These “Iranian-supplied militias” are so on top of it that they have already realized that the US will discover that the bombs are of Iranian design and are risking life-and-limb to plant them in Sunni held fire zones!

Makes you wonder if they were that smart then why didn’t the Iranians just get bombs from a third-party source, or, at the very least remove the markings that would indicate that these came from Iran?

It really seems that the fact that some of these attacks are coming from Sunni held areas that these materials are available, either on the black-market in Iraq, or have OTHER, non-Iranian sourcing.

Perhaps the Mujahadeen Khalq (al Qaida linked BEFORE the invasion) may have robbed an Iranian weapons depot or bribed someone to obtain this stuff…and given them to their anti-American friends? That same Mujahadeen Khalq which the US military NOW has allowed to thrive because it is an anti-Iranian terrorist group?

And lets not forget that the US certainly ecouraged SCIRI to establish well armed “revolutionary” militias in IRAN…trained and supplied by the Iranian Revolutionary Gaurds on the eve of the invasion. Just perhaps some of the weaponry in these Badr Brigade arsenals that were used to “police” the south came from IRAN! You don’t think…?????

But he’s talking about Bonnie’s accomplishments and he mentions she wants to be a skier but “there isn’t much snow in California but she perservered and…” Chances are if you got enough money for the lift ticket, you got enough money for the gas…

I really don’t know too many places here in CA that aren’t within 2 hours of snow… even way down here by Los Angeles – lots of snow, pretty close by…. we do have lots and lots of mountains and all…

Some commmentors are C&L & HuffPo get it wrong about the Grammy process, as I try to explain.

p.lukasiak @ 47

Quick Question: Why does Judge Walton keep talking about “if the appeals court wants to overrule me, they can?” What would those comments contribute to any of this? It’s like he’s giving Libby a list of things to bring up on appeal.

its just Walton’s way of saying telling Wells to STFU because he’s made his decision.

I believe he is also doing this in case of an appeal. It will then be on record why he is ruling the way he is if this ruling is a basis of an appeal. He obviously can be overruled by an appeals court and so he is going on record with the intent of his ruling. I think it is kind of nice that he admits that he may not be the ultimate arbriter of this trial. Also, it looks like he thinks Libby is going to lose and the defense is going to have to appeal.

It also puts Wells on notice that he’s not going to do to Walton what Johnnie Cochran did to Lance Ito.

Quick Question: Why does Judge Walton keep talking about “if the appeals court wants to overrule me, they can?” What would those comments contribute to any of this? It’s like he’s giving Libby a list of things to bring up on appeal.

its just Walton’s way of saying telling Wells to STFU because he’s made his decision.

I believe he is also doing this in case of an appeal. It will then be on record why he is ruling the way he is if this ruling is a basis of an appeal. He obviously can be overruled by an appeals court and so he is going on record with the intent of his ruling. I think it is kind of nice that he admits that he may not be the ultimate arbriter of this trial. Also, it looks like he thinks Libby is going to lose and the defense is going to have to appeal.