Topic: Spin, Lies or Damage Control?
started by: cpu_slave
Posted by cpu_slave on Sep. 18 2003,11:28 am
... and in other news Bush also admits the sky is blue and the grass is green. 
What on earth is going on? Since 9-11 this administration has gone out of it's way to connect Iraq with 9-11, yet produced no proof. As of last Sunday, < HERE > we have Cheney on meet the press telling of such connection, yet on Wednesday Bush and other members of the administration are now coming forward stating there is no link. This is called damage control people. Tie up the loose ends, state that while certain things were said, they really meant something else. Yup, all part of the plan. Just in time to start Bush's reelection campaign.
The reason it's asinine and hypocritical to say this NOW is because the Bush administration KNEW that a lot of people believed Saddam was involved in 9/11 and help perpetrate that myth two ways-
1) By repeatedly mentioning Saddam/Iraq in the same references as terrorism/9-11
And
2) By not making any attempt to dispel the myth because they knew it was helping to generate public support for the pre-emptive strike to remove Hussein
And you know what? It's lying, plain and simple. It's just that, for Republicans, this kind of lying is ok. It's only not ok to lie about your sexual exploits. And that's only if you are a Democrat. Hypocrisy is ok too as long as you are a Republican. And... oh you get the idea.
Former General Wesley Clark told anchor Tim Russert that Bush administration officials had engaged in a campaign to implicate Saddam Hussein in the September 11 attacks - starting that very day. Clark said that he'd been called on September 11 and urged to link Baghdad to the terror attacks, but declined to do so because of a lack of evidence.
Here is a transcript of the exchange:
CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."
RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"
CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."
Clark's assertion corroborates a little-noted CBS Evening News story that aired on September 4, 2002. As correspondent David Martin reported: "Barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, the secretary of defense was telling his aides to start thinking about striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks." According to CBS, a Pentagon aide's notes from that day quote Rumsfeld asking for the "best info fast" to "judge whether good enough to hit SH at the same time, not only UBL." (The initials SH and UBL stand for Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.) The notes then quote Rumsfeld as demanding, ominously, that the administration's response "go massive...sweep it all up, things related and not."
70% of Arabs believe Israel was behind 9-11,70% of Americans think Saddam was behind 9-11,they have a state controlled press, what's our excuse?
Posted by Angel on Sep. 18 2003,12:13 pm
It's not a surprise to me that Bush JR. jumped on the chance to go into Iraq and remove Saddam. I'm sure it was his fathers wish. I don't like Bush or the way he's handled Iraq. Diplomacy, would someone please explain it to him! However, I believe there were good reasons to oust Saddam without the lies and deception. Saddam had 11 years to comply with the U.N. He used chemicals on his people. What happened to the weapons/chemicals we can't find. Maybe he already sold them to Syria, Iran or terrorists.
Posted by cpu_slave on Sep. 19 2003,12:45 pm
| Quote |
| I believe there were good reasons to oust Saddam without the lies and deception. |
Angel, everything you list as a 'good reason' is either a lie and-or a deception.
| Quote |
| Saddam had 11 years to comply with the U.N. |
You can't be serious. The Iraqis were more than willing to allow the UN inspectors to continue. It was the United States and Britain that forced the inspectors to abandon their mission (again). Israel has had several more years to comply with the U.N. and have not- is that alone enough reason to invade and change the regime? Can you tell me what Saddam did that made invading Iraq a priority over finding bin-forgotten? Did the time on the game clock suddenly expire?
| Quote |
| He used chemicals on his people. |
...about 10 years ago. If that is the reason given to justify an invasion I say the US has an exceptionally slow response time. Do you know why he even used the chemicals on his own people? Because they were trying to overthrow the government and were promised help from the US. The help never came, and they we killed. If you want to pin the death of all those people on anyone, I would start with Bush Sr.
| Quote |
| What happened to the weapons/chemicals we can't find. Maybe he already sold them to Syria, Iran or terrorists. |
First of all, we can not prove he even had them in the first place. Now the administration is suggesting that all of the attacks against U.S. soldiers in Iraq are coming from outside of Iraq, from groups such as al-Qaeda. I think they're setting up a larger lie - the rhetoric most repeated and getting louder is that Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia are sending in people to fight a civilian proxy war against the US using terrorist methods, so this would justify the broadening of the military assault to Syria et al. Now you suggest that they may have all the missing Weapons of Mass Destruction? The war on 'terrorism' is conveniently a one size fits all garment.
Secondly, I think it's pretty obvious that Scott Ritter has been thoroughly vindicated. Pretty much everything he said about Iraq's WMD in the lead up to war has been borne out. It's most likely that whatever remaining "unaccounted for" weapons were simply paperwork errors, they had already been destroyed.
Posted by Angel on Sep. 19 2003,10:26 pm
"Iraqis were more than willing to allow the U.N. inspectors to continue"They would allow the inspectors to go where the Iraqis wanted them to go and speak with whom the Iraqis wanted them to speak with. As long as Iraqis were with the inspectors. Your right, Iraqis were more than willing to let the inspectors inspect.
True slave, A decade ago he used chemicals on his own people. The same ones Bush Sr. did a "read my lips" line on. (And Americans wonder why people in the MiddleEast can't trust the U.S.)
I do think we have a slow response time. We wait until thousands of people get slaughtered.(Bosnia) Or our oil supply/personal vendetta is at stake.
"First of all, we can not prove he even had them in the first place."
You said it yourself. About ten years ago Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people. As far as I know chemical wepons don't have a ten year expiration date.
Secondly, I don't know where any biological/chemical weapons are located or who they might have been sold to. In my opinion Saddam had weapons he wasn't supposed to have and was trying to develop more.
If he didn't have any or destroyed what he had. Why did he not prove it to the U.N. inspectors? Why wouldn't he let the U.N. inspectors interview those scientists?
Sounded to me like Saddam was hiding something.
Posted by cpu_slave on Sep. 20 2003,9:00 pm
| Quote |
| If he didn't have any or destroyed what he had. Why did he not prove it to the U.N. inspectors? |
Have you ever tried to prove a negative? Here is an example, prove that you are not developing WMD's, or making meth for that matter.
Look, Iraqis took the inspectors out to a field where they destroyed over 1000 missiles. The inspectors could only account for the weapon if they could find a serial number. The inspectors even stated that it would appear with all the debris that they were in fact all destroyed, but since they could not find serial numbers for every single one they are still listed on the 'unaccounted for' weapons list.
Here is an even better question, where the h3ll are the WMD's that shrub and his administration pointed to as proof? How long have we been there looking without finding one thing to point to as the 'smoking gun'?
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 21 2003,3:52 pm
| Quote |
| "Have you ever tried to prove a negative?" |
He's more tenacious than Algore trying to get his 48th recount!
Posted by Liberal on Sep. 22 2003,12:06 pm
In a letter to Robert C. Byrd of the Senate Appropriations Committee The Congressional Budget Office has said that we need to end this by March 04 otherwise we will have to call up the reserves or use special forces and Marines for this peacekeeping mission. This would have a serious negative effect on our military strength. Special forces and Marines need to train constantly and they can't do that if they are busy patrolling the streets of Iraq. Also the CBO suggest the military would have to drop the requirement of Rapid Deployment Units like the 101st Airborne Divisions ability to be anywhere in the world in 48hrs.One of the other options they are looking at is increasing the size of the US Army by two divisions this plan would take five years to accomplish.
| Quote |
Once those two divisions were available, using them to support an occupation--in addition to employing all of the other forces in the previous options--would enable the United States to sustain an occupation force of 85,000 to 129,000 personnel, at an annual cost of $23 billion to $29 billion < letter from CBO > |
Also according to a recent RAND analysis on Nation Building. "to date, no effort at enforced democratization has taken hold in less than five years.''
So it looks like we are either on a time table here or this is going to cost us much more than $87 billion.
< Copy of letter on Congressional Budget Office website >
Posted by cpu_slave on Sep. 22 2003,12:27 pm
-The following is a quote from democratic underground that I found amusing-"Ah, remember when we were going to get Saddam Hussein, find his weapons of mass destruction, pay for the war using nothing but Iraqi oil revenues, and the only thing getting in our way would be the Iraqi people throwing flowers at us? Yes, those were the days. Unfortunately things haven't quite gone according to the neo-con plan, and now we can't find Saddam or his weapons, the Iraqi people are blowing us and each other up with car bombs, and Our Great Leader had to make a groveling speech to the nation last week asking for another $87 billion to rebuild Iraq. And that's just for one year. That brings the total budget for the war - so far - to $166 billion. But pay no attention to the enormous $550 billion budget hole we're slowly digging, if another $87 billion is what's needed, then another $87 billion is what we shall pay. Just to put things in perspective, $87 billion is three times the amount Bush intends to spend on education this year, twice the budget for Homeland Security, and ten times the budget for the Environmental Protection Agency. To put it further into perspective, the 1991 Gulf War cost the United States about $20 billion total. And to put things even further into perspective, ask yourself how much of that $87 billion is going to go directly into Halliburton and the Carlyle Group's back pockets. Let's face it, Bush and Cheney probably don't even care about next year's election - in a few short years the CEO president has already managed to set himself up for the world's biggest golden handshake. So the Bush Administration have once again totally misled America over yet another aspect of the invasion of Iraq. But what's $87 billion between friends?"
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 22 2003,6:58 pm
If the democrats REALLY, REALLY BELIEVE THAT HALLIBURTON IS GOING TO MAKE ALL THAT MONEY, THEY SHOULD USED THIS "SECRET" KNOWLEDGE TO CASH IN THEMSELVES! Halliburton, (unlike Whitewater) is a publicly traded company. Now that they are going to become so rich, all these "true believers" need to do is to MORTGAGE EVERYTHING THEY'VE GOT, AND PUT THE MONEY INTO HALLIBURTON STOCK--then THEY can cash in, just like Cheney!This has been floating around since the 2000 election--but I haven't seen any big upticks in Halliburton stock, I haven't seen any of the big institutional investors recommending it, and I haven't seen any of the major brokerage houses touting the stock.
Maybe the reason this has failed to resonate with the American people is that more people than ever OWN stock--it is harder than ever for them to play the "class warfare" card!
Posted by Liberal on Sep. 22 2003,8:24 pm
< Chart on Halliburton stock over the last 12 months >Oh yeah, that Halliburton stock is a real underperformer. It's only nearly doubled in the last 12 months. I guess you must have missed those big upticks there Jim.
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 23 2003,8:21 am
Jump on it! If you have insider knowledge, here's your chance to make big bucks--in fact, if ALL of the conspiracy theorists do the same, they will bid up demand for the stock--far above the actual net worth of the company--kind of the "dot.com" bubble that buoyed the stock market to unrealistic highs during the Clinton years!
Posted by Liberal on Sep. 23 2003,9:03 am
I don't have any insider knowledge. I was just pointing out that your previous post was just more rightwing spin when you said Halliburton stock hasn't gone up in value and that no big institutional investors were recommending it.
Not only has Halliburton gone up it's doubled in value in the last 12 months. And as far as you not seeing anyone recommending it here is a link to the morningstar analyst opinions.
< Morningstar Analysts opinion on Halliburton >
Out of 23 analysts
10 say it's a BUY
04 say it's an OUTPERFORM
07 say it's a HOLD
01 say it's an Underperform
01 say it's a SELL
ok, now that we know that the stock is recommened by the vast majority of analysts and that it's doubled in price in the last 12 months are you willing to admit that what you posted yesterday was just more rightwing spin?
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 23 2003,9:44 am
Try this chart on Haliburton--comparing Haliburton with the Dow Jones Industrial Average from Jan. 1992 to the present. < chart >Haliburton stock closely follows the Dow until about 1997-98 (Clinton years), when it outperforms the Dow. It goes back to average again, until 2001, when it plummets--so much for Cheney's help from the Vice-presidency--he was much more effective at helping Haliburton by STAYING ON at Haliburton!)
It is making a recovery now. Even with a falling Dow, it still outperformed Haliburton over the years. Note that as recently as a year ago, Haliburton was trading at about its 1972 price.
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 23 2003,10:06 am
Trying again--doggone computers--the one in the front office can no longer find Javascript, the one in the back office is slow--so slow that Liberal jumped in here in front of me--and when I posted the response, it "supersized it"--cutting off the reference to the chart. Here it is again.< http://moneycentral.msn.com/investo....h+Chart >
You have to be careful with charts, to review ALL the data. Yes, Halliburton is a buy NOW, but would anyone have wanted it over the 10-year average? How about just since the last presidential election? The Dow, even in the doldrums, outperformed it.
Posted by cpu_slave on Sep. 23 2003,2:32 pm
Jim- like Letterman stated the other night, when you write the check, Halliburton is spelled with 2 L's. As far as it outperforming the dow, it sure did as it was using the cash made from government contracts to buy up other businesses. When you see the drop in price, it was about the time that Halliburton was settling asbestos lawsuits and doing a financial restructuring of the organization. Prices do not fluctuate without reason, but this is an entire different argument anyhow. I am also sure that with a $70 billion dollar influx of cash into the organization it will be posting earnings and the stock price will continue to grow. Don't worry, I already bought back in back in march.
I'm surprised that the only thing you commented on in this thread was the repost about Halliburton, but still glad you made time from your 'is Palestine real or not' argument to contribute.
Now I see the shrub stumping at the UN trying to get international help, but only if it done his way (deja-vu- did we not see the same thing early this year about the UN assisting us going to war?) While I am not in favor of just dropping Iraq into the UN's lap, I would like to see some relatively short time table on this, not just shrub's administration's attempts to draw out as much taxpayer cash to toss at this as they can.
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 23 2003,3:45 pm
Now we have Edward Kennedy, the "hero of Chappaquiddic" (I was going to use "Great White"--like the shark in "Jaws"--but I didn't want people to confuse Kennedy with the band that killed nearly as many people as the Iraqi's did in the entire war) whining about Bush going to the United Nations. What IS it with this guy? First, he says, in effect, that no war is "legitimate" unless it is under the auspices of the pastel blue helmets, then, when Bush DOES go to the U.N., he whines about that, too! No matter what Bush does, you can be sure Kennedy is a'gin it! I think Bush is making a big mistake going to the U.N.--it will be perceived as weak in the Arab world, and in the rest of the world. France, already miffed because they didn't get any of the rebuilding contracts, will once again attempt to be a "power broker".
Things in Iraq are not as bad as the talking heads at the networks would have us believe--as the link below, from Rep. Miller (DEMOCRAT-Georgia) mentions:
< http://www.ajc.com/opinion....4896111 >
I'm all for a "Sherman's March Through Georgia" approach--go in hard, do what needs to be done, be hard but fair with the populace, and get out. I like CPU's formula--give them a couple of weeks to "declare peace", or we'll start all over again!
Posted by hoosier on Sep. 23 2003,4:18 pm
When it comes down to it, its all about politics. Jim, you are right, no matter what Bush does, Kennedy will be against it. But your post kind of reminds me of Shawn Hannity. You and Shawn seem to skip the fact that the Republicans play the same game you are pissed at the Demacrats for playing. Anything a Republican president does, the Demacrats will be against. Anything a Demacratic president does, the Republicans will be against. This might be a little off topic, but anything you can accuse the Demacrats of, the Republicans are guilty of also.Bush might as well go to the UN now, I think he sees that his presidency has been one big cluster _ _ _ _ after another. Not that he is any different than any other president that came before him, but every decision he makes now takes into account one thing, REELECTION, period. We went to war to get peoples minds off the economy. If you dont believe that, then listen to what his number one advisor, Carl Rowe said.
"If this election is about the economy, we lose. If we make it about the war, we win."
I think that says it all. I am not a republican or demacrat, the die hard party liners in both parties make me want to puke. Having said that, Bush Jr. is going to go down as one of the most corrupt, over spending, threat to civil liberties administrations in the history of the U.S. Why is he going to the UN now? Because he thinks his reelection depends on it. The UN should all tell Bush and the US to go _ _ _ _ themselves. After all, isnt that what we told the UN, in so many words? Anyway, in my opinion, Bush went to the UN to save his @ss, but unless the economy gets a lot better in between now and election time, its going to be to little, to late.
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 23 2003,6:25 pm
Perhaps a new slant in the discussion--how did we get this way? Was politics ALWAYS this partisan? Is it because in the pre-television era, politics was very localized? Is it because of shorter attention spans--people have to make their point in the first 15 seconds, or be lost to the television "clicker"? Is it an "unintended consequence" of campaign finance laws, resulting in few but more viscious ads, or "tell candidate ___ to stop...." ads? Is it more apparent in National elections than in State--or in Local? Was it this way in the 80s? The 70s? 60s? 50s? Can we/will we ever return to civility?It seems that political campaigns have become less about IDEAS, and more about POSTURING. Less about PLATFORM, and more about 15-second sound bites. Less about INDIVIDUAL CHARACTER, and more about PACKAGING AND SELLING A CANDIDATE. Less about what is good for the COUNTRY, more about what is good for the PARTY. Less about budget FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, and more about LOOK AT THE "PORK" I'VE BROUGHT HOME TO YOU!
Posted by hoosier on Sep. 23 2003,6:41 pm
When did it start to be like this? Thats a damn good question Jim. When did you notice things getting out of hand? The first president I can really say I knew anything about is Nixon. Not such a good start for my political interest. But then came Ford, who pardans Nixon. Fords excuse that the country had suffered enough is the first real bull$hit I had heard from a politician. If anyone here truely believes that Ford had anything in mind other than the Republican party when he made that decision, well, sorry, but you are an idiot. All these years later, after being lied to and over taxed by every politician that has followed, I cant stand any of em that have the word republican or demacrat in front of their name. To me, its almost like they are a party member first, an American second. I also believe that Clintons impeachment was nothing more than pay back time for the republicans.
Anyway, Jim, as you are one of the old people here,
, I just wondered when it was that you noticed a change in politics.
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 23 2003,7:25 pm
I'd say that the 1960 election of Kennedy/(Nixon) was perhaps the last "civil" national election. Not coincidentally, it was the first televised debate, and one of the first to have big television media buys. It was incredibly close--but except for the normal Chicago/Mayor Daly political shennanigans that have become National lore--it was very civil.Johnson/Goldwater saw the first of the "attack" ads--the nuclear explosion in a field of poppies. The 1968 election was even more slashing--as you might envision during the Vietnam war. Even primaries became vicious during the late 60s and 70s--attacks on Muskie brought a tear to his eye, and ended his Presidential campaign--Tom Eagleton was "outed" for seeking psychological help. After the strife of the early 70s, people sought "comfort", and Jimmy Carter provided it--a big grin, and nothing controversial. Perhaps because of his age--the Reagan campaign and debates were very hard-fought in the trenches, but very civil at the top--nothing much more controversial than "there you go again!". The Bush/Clinton and Dole/Clinton years were not overly contentious at the top--all parties wanted to look "Presidential"--but it is the first I can remember of the "issue" ads--the first "soft money" as defined in campaign reform--the first "tell to stop ....(doing what he is doing)". I believe that was the start of big media buys, shorter ads, more strident advertising--not by the top candidates, but by the parties, AND NEW PLAYERS--SINGLE ISSUE GROUPS. Abortion, gun rights, environment, free trade--each single issue advocacy group started making big media buys, as well.
This brings us to Bush/Gore--and the present time. We are all familiar with the tone and tenor of the last election. My prediction is that Campaign Finance reform will have the usual OPPOSITE effect of that intended. We will have more short ads, more "tagged" ads, where one candidate will tag another from the same party. We will have more thinly-veiled ads by advocacy groups supporting their normal constituency--The National Education Assn. for the D's, and The National Rifle Assn. for the R's, for example. It's going to be a tough election to watch.
I do believe that there is less development of IDEAS because of the need to "get the message out". (is it coincidental that the first of the short, hard-hitting, more strident ads coincided with the rise of MTV and dish/cable?) In "Olden Days" (you are NOT that much younger than me, Hoosier--you will be surprised how fast 10 or 15 years go by!)
, the newspapers would take the time to publish entire platforms, and people would take the time to read them. Lamentably, not so today.I'd be interested in the observations of other people on the forum--especially the other "elderly" posters--does anyone have one of these "emoticons" with a tear running down the cheek?)
Posted by hoosier on Sep. 23 2003,8:04 pm
LOL, just had to get that older than me jab in,
Posted by cpu_slave on Sep. 24 2003,12:40 pm
Just to let everyone here know, my shrub bashing has nothing to do with partisan politics. It has more to do with the fact that he is a moron running this country into the ground than what political party he is a member of. Hoosier is right in the fact that both sides are playing the very same game, yet it depends on which side of the fence you are on whether or not you believe so-in-so is right or wrong.With the extremes of both the left and the right, it is very hard to find someone willing to take the middle ground and so we saw the rise of 3rd party candidates. Somehow during the last election, both major parties started making an effort to make it seem like a vote for a 3rd party candidate was throwing your vote away. I mean look at the numbers, Penny was leading by some pretty decent numbers in the polls then all the sudden it goes south?
Jim, when you asked the question 'when did it start being like this?' I guess I must be a little younger then both you and Hoosier because I have always seen it this way. The first election I remember was Carter/Reagan back in '80 (and I was still about a decade away from being able to vote) and every election since has been nothing but extreme party vs. party with plenty of 'special interest' trying to help us poor, ignorant masses see the light and choose their candidate. You mention a time when you did not think politics was so uncivilized, but looking back through history books I can see that there may have been only a few times where politics was not too corrupt.
To many citizens, the political system in this country has become a corrupt beast, too big to control and so they become apathetic. Ask people who vote in any state or national election, are they voting for the best candidate for the position or simply the lesser of two evils? Partisan politics have ruined this country, and looking back at the last presidential election I have always thought to myself that the best republican candidate was passed over for an easily mislead moron. Don't get me wrong here, I have no early favorite democrat but I imagine that they too will screw this up somehow.
Here is a quote to sum up the ignorance of too many in today's society:
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." -- Britney Spears
Since the republicans will not back anyone other then shrub, then I don't care who the democrat is, just kick bush to the curb in 2004!
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 24 2003,1:07 pm
Sure, YOU had to get a jab in at my age (56), too! (sob!) I can tell you, Jefferson/Adams wasn't this nasty! Seriously, the first Presidential election I can remember was Eisenhower/Stevenson, in 1956 (that would make me 9 at the time)--but it really seemed civil. I really believe that the erosion happened not during, but AFTER the Nixon/Kennedy debates of 1960--the election was closer in the popular vote than even the 2000 election. The power of media presence put Kennedy over the top (Kennedy appeared youthful, and Nixon had "five-o-clock shadow", sweated, and looked furtive), and Party media people recognized the power of television.I realize there are not many out there with the l-o-n-g perspective of age that I have, (:) sarcasm) but I would like to hear what others have to say about the questions I posed on "How we got this way--and can it be undone".
Posted by hoosier on Sep. 24 2003,1:13 pm
Nice post cpu_slave. If I had my way we would abolish the parties all together. To me they are the biggest problem we have. The politicians first loyalty is to the party. As for the Britney Spears comment, that would be really scary if it was coming from someone with a brain. She has no idea what is going on so she says the easiest thing she can think of instead of debating someone on the issues. The first person I voted for was John Anderson, an independent, I was only 18 or 19, cant remember for sure. But every election since then I have voted for the independent if one is available. As far as people wasting their votes on independents, to me the only vote that is wasted is the one that is not cast for the person you truely believe in, not just the one you think will win.
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 24 2003,1:56 pm
John Anderson--you're getting old, too! Like it or not (I don't), but Britney is an icon of her generation--and of potential voters. These "celebrities" carry weight, especially among the young and impressionable--not for what they KNOW, but for who they ARE. See the web site Hollywood half-wits for a listing of some truly outrageous outbursts.
In peripherally related news, I see the Dixie Chicks have abandoned Country Music because of their treatment by DJs, other Country artists, and their fans. They failed to garner any awards at the Country Music awards, and their nominations were greeted by boos from the crowd. The DCs now say they will be strictly rock and roll--where their fans are. Don't think they will last long on MTV--especially without the extensive "retouching" (body switch) like the E magazine cover.
