This t-shirt -- featuring "Bush Lied" on the front, "They Died" on back and carries the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq -- is banned in two states: Oklahoma and Louisiana. There is federal legislation pending in the Congress to censor the shirt throughout the U.S.
The t-shirt, produced and sold by carryabigsticker.com, lists the names of about 2,600 dead American personnel as a result of the Bush-Cheney failed war policy (as of September 4). An update with the named body count of 2,803 as of September 23 is due out in early November. The commercial Web site produces and sells liberal bumper stickers and tees.
The Bush policy of denial regarding the U.S. death toll in Iraq has created controversy both among the anti-war population and the U.S. press. Stories about the shirts have appeared on CNN, Fox-News, NPR, and in the pages of USA Today and many other newspapers.
Oklahoma Congressperson Dan Boren, (D-Okla.), who calls himself "proud to be an independent voice in Congress," is responsible for the ban in Oklahoma and the bill in Congress that will censor the t-shirt and ban it within the U.S. Reeking of Liebermanism, Boren was one of only two politicians endorsed by country singer Toby Keith -- the other being President George W. Bush.
His anti-First Amendment bill is H.R. 5755: "To amend title 10, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Defense to prohibit the unauthorized use of names and images of members of the Armed Forces." The bill was introduced by Boren in July and referred to House Committee on in September. The bill has 103 co-sponsors.
On April 20, Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry, a Democrat, signed into law HB2643, creating penalties for the commercial use of a soldier's names or likeness without consent from the soldier or the soldier's family. The law was sponsored by two Democrats, Jim Wilson of the Oklahoma Senate, and Mike Brown of the Oklahoma House of Representatives. Violation of the law is punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or up to one year in prison.
On June 2. Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco signed into law HB1304, also making it a crime to use the name or likeness of a deceased soldier in advertising without the permission of the closest living relative. Violation of the law is punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or up to a year in prison.
Despite the new laws and the pending federal legislation, creator Dan Frazier says he plans to continue selling his controversial anti-war merchandise. He says it is a free speech issue and that his merchandise deserved a place in the national dialogue on the merits of the war.
"I believe I have a moral obligation to do the right thing here," said Frazier in a prepared statement. "To me, the right thing is to continue drawing attention to the horrific toll this war is taking in terms of the lives lost. If these legislators really cared about the families of the troops, they would stop their political posturing and pass legislation to bring the troops home."
The secondary issue here is the "more patriotic than thou" hypocrisy of these "Democrats." Likening to Clinton's "run to the middle" ploy of backing the flag burning legislation and the "stay the course" occupation of Iraq, voters are leery of trusting Democrats to protect their Constitutional rights and create a just international foreign policy. Reprehensible, self-serving moves like this only heighten that concern. But as I've noted in my previous article, The 2006 Election: Democracy or Bush Dictatorship we have little choice. Thus, the word is vigillance and the be prepared to drive them to Left after we've elected them.
As of this date a reported 2,893 men and women of the U.S. armed forces have died because Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld and the GOP lied, as Robert Parry said, "Bush's defenders say he's just an honest guy who gets lots of bad information but the evidence points to a leader who wants his subordinates to give him a steady supply of "talking points" that can be used to achieve his goals whether the arguments are true, half true or totally false."
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 1)
1. It is ludicrous for these pols to attempt to call the publication of simple factual data some sort of crime!
While it may be argued whether Bush was deliberately prevaricating, (or just regurgitating on cue whatever he was fed by "his handlers"), when he repeated ad nauseum his pre-war lies about Iraqi "nuke-u-lur" weapons-building, wmds, alliances with terrorists, etc. - there can be NO argument that these assertions, (used as justification for killing Iraqis who had done us no harm), were, in fact, lies...Opposed to Bush and his defenders we have someone who merely wants to point out two indisputable facts regarding: 1. The Americans who have died in this most tragic, unnecessary, (and hugely expensive), undertaking; And, 2. The FACT that American justification for this war was based on a tissue of lies!...I know who I'm rooting for - and it sure as Hell isn't for liars or the stinking, dangerous, lies they tell.
Brian Andrew Davis at 12:22PM on Oct 31st 2006
2. The nerve of Congress to try to usurp the 1st Amendment. This law is unconstitutional and no court in our land will uphold such a blatant violation of our first amendment rights.
This President and this Congress has absolutely no respect for our Constitution. In fact, Congress will be censored in November. Our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves right now. They are ashamed of this country and our leaders. Shames on this do nothing-corporate congress.
Cheryl S. Ross at 1:41PM on Oct 31st 2006
3. We should vote out of office all 103 (or however many) Congress members who even CONSIDER doing anything but opposing this type of legislation. Send them back to high school to read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
This is very clearly free speech, pure and simple... rather than some mixture of free speech plus commercial abuse of a soldier's name. And even if it were the latter, it would still be protected, unless you want to start repealing key provisions of the Bill of Rights, and/or allowing newspapers and websites to only be published by private citizens operating without profit.
Yes, the guy is making a buck. So do all journalists, editorial writers, political commentators, etc. They deserve to, as they strengthen our nation, by providing their opinions, in this case well-considered dissent, but even in cases less well spoken.
That the anti-war editorializing went onto a T-shirt for sale rather than into a letter to the editor, or into an editorial column in a newspaper for sale, is irrelevant.
Do not let politicians whose education apparently stopped before high school US History class, take away the rights our ancestors died for.
If we do, then there is only one branch of government left to protect our rights, as the president is already on the wrong side of most battles like this. I'm assuming he would sign such legislation, but perhaps it is too outlandish and blatant a Constitutional violation even for him.
I hope and believe that he was incapable of finding Supreme Court justices who would come down on the wrong side of this one. I hope he is right that they are not "activist judges" to that extent, or our rights will finish going down the drain sooner rather than later.
John Hopper at 2:52PM on Oct 31st 2006
4. Congress is not usurping the 1st Amendment. O'McCarthy doesn't link to the federal legislation banning the shirts because there is none. The OK and LA (two donk governors BTW)laws deal only with the soldiers likenesses, not the actual shirt.
There are laws on the books banning the likeness of all famous people as they are copyrighted, why should dead heroes be different?
The factual inaccuracies in this post are astounding unless you take a second and look at this guys other posts.
Perhaps you should take a minute and get your facts straight before posting something as inane as this and as a vet, spare me from posting anything about the military again.
scott at 3:49PM on Oct 31st 2006
5. I can't help but wonder how these types of laws can apply. Could they be used to prevent journalists from publishing the names of deceased soldiers? What about "Memorial" uses of names/images? i don't think a commercial ban would apply...
Corinne at 9:20PM on Oct 31st 2006
6. Republican censorship again DONT LET THEM KEEP USING THIS BULLSHIT!!!!
Jack Harris at 10:58PM on Oct 31st 2006
7. so, what it wrong with the truth?
dewey at 9:10PM on Nov 1st 2006
8. That is what is wrong with this whole situation with the war and how we got there and everything else the Bush haters can push in our faces. They say all this stuff over and over and some people believe it. Please, when you see a "news" item that is that inflamatory look a little deeper. Do a search on the net and then read it all not just the posts that back what you want to believe.
Rhonda at 8:03AM on Nov 3rd 2006