Dixie Chicks... I'm ashamed...

Just because it was a moment in their private life doesn't mean they were unaware of the cameras. The camera crew didn't hide in the closet and jump out when the band reacted to something controversial. Therefore, yes, I was shocked that they would use profanity while knowingly being recorded. Furthermore, they knew their fans would watch this movie or else why have these moments recorded? They made a conscious decision on how they would behave and what language they would use.

You're saying their language is appropriate simply because it is their private lives - once they put it on tape, it's no longer private. They are sharing these private moments with us and making them public and should present themselves accordingly. The band even decided to allow that scene to be in the movie - I find it hard that they would not have any editing rights on the unfinished product.

The fact that it's rated R just invalidates my "think of the children" concern. I conceded that fact already and have moved on, but nothing says I can't reserve the right to be shocked by foul language coming from a group that has so far shown no tendency to behave that way in a public medium - i.e. in concert, on radio, in film. They had the higher moral ground and didn't need to lose it with one disparaging remark.

__________________________________
I ain't your friend, palooka.

Just because it was a moment in their private life doesn't mean they were unaware of the cameras. The camera crew didn't hide in the closet and jump out when the band reacted to something controversial. Therefore, yes, I was shocked that they would use profanity while knowingly being recorded. Furthermore, they knew their fans would watch this movie or else why have these moments recorded? They made a conscious decision on how they would behave and what language they would use.

well i am sure to some extent they were aware of the cameras, but remeber they had had the cameras on them for months by the time those words were uttered. they had probably gotten used to having the cameras there and going about their normal everyday lives without taking too much notice of the cameras. the movie shows them as they really are, when they are just natalie, emily, and martie, and not being the dixie chicks. had they changed their language and behavior for the film, we wouldn't be seeing them, we would be seeing your run of the mill rockumentary.

in interviews they have said the only place the cameras weren't allowed was in the dressing rooms, and natalie has mentioned that scenes with her and her children were cut because she became too aware of the camera when her children were there.

You're saying their language is appropriate simply because it is their private lives - once they put it on tape, it's no longer private. They are sharing these private moments with us and making them public and should present themselves accordingly. The band even decided to allow that scene to be in the movie - I find it hard that they would not have any editing rights on the unfinished product.

i don't think anyone was making a judgement as to whether it was appropriate or not. the point was that they said these things in what essentially were private settings; a meeting, a hospital room, just hanging out with each other. like i have said before, if they were making a documentary about their music, swearing might seem strange or inappropriate, but this was a documentary about the controversy, the aftermath, and the girls themselves. it was not geared towards music fans, so they did not have a responsibility towards those people.

and actually they didn't have any power over the editing, but two of them have made comments about being unhappy with certain scenes in the film. of course they saw the unfinished product before anyone else, but they did not play a part in creating other than the footage they provided.

I conceded that fact already and have moved on, but nothing says I can't reserve the right to be shocked by foul language coming from a group that has so far shown no tendency to behave that way in a public medium - i.e. in concert, on radio, in film. They had the higher moral ground and didn't need to lose it with one disparaging remark.

but since the movie is rated R and it says it is due to language on the poster, people should not be shocked that certain words appear. we see them as they are, as humans, as three woman who are also mothers and wives, who say the same things that others say everyday. they act a certain way when they are at work (such as a concert or interview), but the essence of a documentary is to see things as they really are, not a cleaned up version of what they are. it wouldn't be true to the documentary or to them if they guarded whatever they said. plus, the dumbf--- line is a genuine natalie moment and i laughed out loud.

and i would argue they still have the moral high ground. that position is sqaurely handed to them after watching the behavior of the anti-natalie folks in the film.

Had I known it was rated R, my initial post would have been a bit different and i doubt this part of the thread would exist (which is a shame because it seems this part is the only one talking about the movie - everything else seems to be a bit more politically involved).

In context of their private lives, yes, they're allowed to do and say whatever they please without fear of public consequence. If they totally had no control whatsoever, then my issue is with the editor/producer.

__________________________________
I ain't your friend, palooka.

"If they totally had no control whatsoever, then my issue is with the editor/producer."

You still don't get it. Even if the DCs did have full editing control it would still be well within their rights to include the swearing. You can't argue that the DCs shouldn't be heard swearing in this film just because they're a bluegrass band. As danu keeps pointing out, the film isn't about the DCs as musicians but as people who got their constitutional right to free speech attacked. Natalie Maines isn't Mother Theresa. Beneath the celebrity is a normal person. And in reality, most people swear. Get over it.

Reality can destroy the dream; why shouldn't the dream destroy reality?
- George Moore

But it is about the Dixie Chics as musicians, musicians with the freedom of speech who got attacked for using it, etc etc etc. If they weren't musicians, the film wouldn't exist. The fact is they have a public persona and I was expecting that public persona to be translated into the documentary which it was for the most part. The DC's came across as intelligent women frustrated over the reactions of their fans - women who just want to get on with it without really apologizing for something that they felt needed to be said. Their love for their families and their art can be seen plainly throughout.
If it reaches an audience, it's no longer private, period. If it's not private, it's public and, if it's public, then certain things should be omitted depending on that audience. You wouldn't curse around your grandmother (or any other appropriate individual - priest, doctor, professor, etc) just to preserve your "real" self. My arguement was that they need to be mindful of their language since children are also included in their fanbase, but, since the movie is rated R for language, that point is no longer valid (as I've conceded). The rest of my statement is pure opinion and you really won't force me to change my opinion so this thread should just end here with the understanding that it is a difference of opinion on what is appropriate coming from a family oriented genre band regardless of whether or not they're in a magazine interview or sitting in front of a camera at home on a couch.

__________________________________
I ain't your friend, palooka.

The rest of my statement is pure opinion and you really won't force me to change my opinion so this thread should just end here with the understanding that it is a difference of opinion on what is appropriate coming from a family oriented genre band regardless of whether or not they're in a magazine interview or sitting in front of a camera at home on a couch.

i agree with that. if them swearing honestly bothers you, that's a matter of personal taste. you can be bothered by it, but i don't think its fair to criticize them because this particular thing is offensive to you.

i would also take issue with your characterizing them as "family oriented genre band". first, look at many of their past songs (goodbye earl, white trash wedding, sin wagon are obviously songs with mature things, but other songs deal with mature issues). i understand that natalie has always been outspoken during their concerts and made jokes throughout the concerts. and many other country artists have many songs with mature themes that may not be child appropriate. my point is also that they are not a band that is specifically targeted towards a younger audience (hilary duff, britney, n-sync, etc), they are targeted towards adults and happen to have some younger fans. beacuse of this, it's really up to parents to make the decision about what is appropriate (not just in terms of the movie).

I don't know what you're talking about...I thought Goodbye Earl was good old fashioned family fun....lol

"Certainty of death....Small chance of success.....
What are we waitin for?"

"But it is about the Dixie Chics as musicians, musicians with the freedom of speech who got attacked for using it, etc etc etc. If they weren't musicians, the film wouldn't exist."

The film may have been made and was able to gain popularity BECAUSE the DCs are celebrity musicians. The film may have also portrayed them being musicians. But the film itself is not really about them AS musicians. They could have made a movie about a bunch of no names who had their freedom of speech trampled on (which is what this movie is really about), but who'd give a hoot?

"If it reaches an audience, it's no longer private, period. If it's not private, it's public and, if it's public, then certain things should be omitted depending on that audience."

What they said may no longer be private, but what matters is that it was said in a private setting where they were just being themselves.

Reality can destroy the dream; why shouldn't the dream destroy reality?
- George Moore

Unfortunately, when you make something public, even if it's a private moment, it becomes open to criticism. And I characterize all country bands as family oriented, but maybe that's my own personal bias - most of the country music I've listened to, I listened to as a kid with my grandfather.

Natalie being outspoken doesn't bother me at all. The fact that she can do so without being whiny and resorting to common name-calling (most of the time) impresses me and I think many other female artists should follow her example. I just don't approve of taking it down to the level inhabited by morons; it invalidates all her previous good behavior and gives her critics one more thing to point at and say "eh? eh? we told you she was evil!" when in fact she isn't evil for saying what she thinks, she just needs to keep a bit of it for when the camera's are off. But once again, that's just my opinion.

__________________________________
I ain't your friend, palooka.

Haven't seen the documentary... I'm a CANADIAN LIBERAL (or the semi-equivalent to a Democrat in the U.S), and hey I'm all for free speech. I think the Bush regime IS probably the worst presidential regime I've ever lived through. However...

What I found kind of... inappropriate about saying something like that at a concert... was it was just kind of random. Again, hey - I'm all for free speech... but there are better forums for you to express your opinion, and there are better ways to do it. Even though I'm sure this stunt was planned, Natalie kind of put her foot in her mouth.

At the end of the day, I don't really HAVE a clear cut side, like, I'm against bush, but not because the DC said what they said. I dislike the man regardless - I mean... all that happened was she put her foot in her mouth - you reap what you sew. Now they are going through it. Good for her for saying that out in front of all those people, she has serious moxy to do something like that. But to expect to say something like that and NOT get a huge backlash? I mean, they play C/W. This is primarily SOUTHERN U.S music. I mean, it wasn't a smart move, but I'm not against them. In fact I support how they feel, and they have some nice tunes. I just wont say "ZOMG ZOMG! THEY NEEDED TO SAY IT! ZOMG! BUSH IS EVIL!", I don't need them to tell me that. I have already made up my mind politically. Again, I WONT boo someone for doing this. Ah, I am trying to word this properly because I know a bunch of retards are going to take this the wrong way. Well make of it what you will:

I wont just say they are right and be one of those non-analytical hip-shooters that just moves in on a side, I pick my OWN side, I look at all sides of something and judge it for myself. Bush sucks huge, but D/C still made a MISTAKE, I'm not against it, but they gotta deal with it.

Miggs was able to get off three shots in under 6 seconds and scored two hits including a head shot.

What I found kind of... inappropriate about saying something like that at a concert... was it was just kind of random. Again, hey - I'm all for free speech... but there are better forums for you to express your opinion, and there are better ways to do it. Even though I'm sure this stunt was planned, Natalie kind of put her foot in her mouth.

nkfilms, since you haven't seen the film, i just thought i would give you some background.

the comment wasn't necessarily random. the week before the concert at shephard's bush in london, thousands of british citizens participated in anti-war rallies. this was in the weeks leading up to the iraqi war of. the chicks knew that there british fans had a tendency to be more progressive and liberal than their american fans, so they had a pretty good idea that the people at that concert were either against the war or had even particiapted in the protests. they felt that it would be irresponsible and trite for them to go about their concert as if none of those things were occuring."We were about to go to war, and before we went on that night we talked about how silly we felt having to go out and entertain when our hearts were so heavy with what was about to happen...that night it felt just too strange not to say anything. It would have been trite not to acknowledge it. To say something that was true and real but in a jokey manner was my way of dealing with it. And I'd rather it was a political reason that brought us down off the top of the charts than a musical one." "It's changed us all for the better," Robison adds.

and natalie's comment about bush was not the only thing she said. her entire quote (i've probably posted this way too many times) is this:"Just so you know we’re on the good side with y’all. We don’t want this war and we don’t want this violence. And we’re ashamed that the president of the United States is from Texas”

and it happens that the british crowd cheered wildly. it appeared as if they shared the sentiment. when people say they should have known better because of who their fans are i think two things, 1)that doesn't say alot about who their fans supposedly are and 2) when they said it, they were saying it to fans, just not american fans

and i happen to be one of those people that believe that no matter what they said and no matter what side of the aisle they came down on, they did not deserve what they got. the "punishment" most certainly did not fit the "crime".

Dude, we differ. End of story. Let it go. Move on. It's not always about getting the last word. The world will keep turning just because I happen to have an opinion that you don't share. =P

__________________________________
I ain't your friend, palooka.

I agree that DEATH threats are terrible, america is a *beep* nation don't get me wrong. They are so messed up right now, but I still think Natile put her foot in her mouth - They should have recognized the gravity of the situation, of course they were going to get majorly slammed... again, their core fan base is the southern U.S. I mean... Duhhh? Hello Dixie Chicks? Anyone in there?

Still a terrible move, on a business aspect. Aside from that if they don't CARE about album sales, then good for them :D

Miggs was able to get off three shots in under 6 seconds and scored two hits including a head shot.

I think she said what she thought needed to be said - country music is stereotypically filled with misguided patriotism for God and Country (and tends to confuse one with the other in most cases). They were playing in a UK venue and felt the need to connect to their fans in that particular arena.

Now they would have to be stupid to think that there wouldn't be a reaction, but I don't think they were prepared for the level of reaction. Sure, they got banned from a few radio stations and the cds were burned en masse; I think they could've foreseen that. But I think their fans crossed a line when they violated the Dixie Chic's homes and put the DC children in harm's way. In the past bit of discussion that I've participated in on this board, we spoke about public versus private lives. With the exception of the filming, their homes lives are private and their fans need to respect that. I know in America we're guilty of stalking our stars, but just because it's popular doesn't make it legal. The people who vandalized their homes should be held culpable. There is no excuse for that sort of behavior.

Regardless of Bush's atrocities, there's only a certain amount of criticism that one can give before it becomes annoying - if you don't like it, change it. This country's been overrun by apathy and nihilism and it's just sad to see so many of my generation complain but not bother to vote. In my opinion, instead of making a movie about how disgusted they are at fan backlash, perhaps they should be joining organizations such as "Rock the Vote" that promote voter registration and voter turn out amongst the youth. I can already hear the voices of dissent saying it's not their responsibility to preach about voting - they made it their responsibility as soon as they opened their mouths to spout politics instead of lyrics. You can't dip a toe in and then run away to whine about the reaction. Do something positive or else "shut up and sing". No one is stopping Natalie or anyone from the Dixie Chics from enjoying their freedom of speech - but to enjoy that freedom you also have to be willing to accept the consequences of your actions (within reason - death threats and vandalism have no place within the realm of acceptable consequence). Just as they have a right to say what they've said, so too do their fans have the right to express their anger towards what was said by not listening to them anymore and destroying merchandise that was legally purchased.

All in all, the whole thing is just incredibly silly to get this angry over - all she said was that she was ashamed the president came from her state. I don't really have an objection to what she said up until the video. It's not like what Kanye West said after Hurricane Katrina with his off the wall statement about Bush not caring about black people. <i>That</i> irked me beyond all else simply because black people weren't the only ones who lost their lives/homes/loved ones/all worldly possessions in that disaster so it's disgusting that he would make such a blanket statement. Ugh.

And I've probably just opened a whole other can of worms, eep!

__________________________________
I ain't your friend, palooka.

In my opinion, instead of making a movie about how disgusted they are at fan backlash, perhaps they should be joining organizations such as "Rock the Vote" that promote voter registration and voter turn out amongst the youth. I can already hear the voices of dissent saying it's not their responsibility to preach about voting - they made it their responsibility as soon as they opened their mouths to spout politics instead of lyrics.

in 2004, they participated in the "Vote for Change" campaign. i believe they also worked with the "Vote or Die" campaign.

Those are the two most worthwhile things they have ever done (including making music, most of which I also enjoy), and I commend them for that. I don't agree with them, but THAT is the way that the American people should try to get things changed.

"Certainty of death....Small chance of success.....
What are we waitin for?"

This is a DISCUSSION board. Everything anyone posts here is open to be commented on, which includes criticism. You yourself said that if its public its open to criticism. If you dont want a reply then don't post at all. So please don't tell me to "move on". As long as you keep posting something I have right to post a reply if I feel I need to comment. This has nothing to do with who gets the last word. So save your sarcasm for something that actually warrants it.

Reality can destroy the dream; why shouldn't the dream destroy reality?
- George Moore

I need to add a few things...

1) When did the DC's have thier freedom of speech trampled upon? As far as I can tell they were able to express dissent of thier government on foriegn soil and never ended up in Prison. Claiming that those people who burned thier CD's and stopped listening to them are somehow trampling thier freedom of speech is ludicrous. In fact, you're just trying to stifle the oppositions freedom of speech. (See how it works, you say something bad that I don't like, I can stop playing your music on my radio station - not infringing upon your freedom, just expressing mine)

2) The true culprit snuffing out Freedom of speech is "Polticial Correctness" -the day a white man has to go into "Rehab/Re-programming" for using the N-Word, we've lost that freedom. (They should be alowed to demonstrate thier idiocy without the government or society forcing them into a reprogramming\tolerance class.

3)This idea that Bush is an idiot has just got to go. You can disagree with him, say he made mistakes, but the man is not an idiot - he's quite inteligent; he's just inarticulate.

4) The Iraq war was not Bush's war; it's not Gulf War II or even the "Second Gulf War" as I've heard it called. It's a resumption of hostilities continuing the Gulf War which Sadam started by invading Kuait. Any country worth it's salt that allows a cease fire agreement to be violated over and over again without resumeing hostilities will show itself to the world to be weak and easily taken advantage of. Get over the WMD's, that's not why we went to war (See above and how GWB is NOT Articulate and never articulated the TRUE reasons for war) - we went because Sadam violated the treaty that kept us from kicking his backside the first time.

5)The real reason people were upset with the DC's was not because they put down the president but because they did it on Forgien Soil - say that stuff at home and there'd be a back lash but probably not as bad.

Okay feeling better now.
\rant off.

I agree with just about all of your post.

Only thing I'd comment on is that the DC's received death threats. That's pretty crappy. Any trashing of CDs and such, free will and well within the American peoples' rights to do so. But the second that the DC's receive death threats it becomes a violation of their own rights.

You have those freedoms up until the point where they violate somebody else's freedoms. The Chicks didn't violate anybody else's rights, and the majority of current anti-Chick people don't violate the Chicks' rights. But the second it becomes a death threat situation, all bets are off.

"Certainty of death....Small chance of success.....
What are we waitin for?"

Again we agree; however I discount the "Death Threat" people because they are not expressing "free speech" but rather breaking the law in another way. People of all pursuasions recieve death threats. Doesn't make it right and I hope Law Enforcement follows up on all of it and expresses it's own version of freedom.

and the vandalization of property, large amounts of hate mail, being called sluts, whores, traitors, etc.

if those things didn't violate the chicks freedom of speech (which some obviously didn't), it violated the spirit of freedom of speech. how are we to spread democracy to a fractured nation like iraq and teach them respect for differing ideas and beliefs, when people attempt to punish people here for having different ideas and vocalizing them?

so what your saying is that all the reasons bush and his administration gave us prior to going to war weren't the real reason, and we never got that reason because he was capable of articulating it? hmm, sounds like an excuse to me. especially since he wasn't the only one hammering the reason into people's heads. if this is true (and i don't agree it is), then the administration lied about why we went to war, which makes it illegal. if the man can't articulate ideas, he shouldn't be president.

i don't criticize people's posts based on spelling and it has nothing to do with the content of your post, but i would suggest going back and editing some, because it can be distracting. intelligent, saddam, kuwait, and their are all the correct spellings. i'm not going to leave this section of the post here, however, it will be deletetd.

1) What I meant to say was that it was wrong for people to have launched a smear and hate campaign against the DCs just for expressing their opinion. I'm not saying that the opposition can't disagree with them or that they cant burn their CDs. But I think the death threats, vandalism of their home and banning of their music on radio is petty, idiotic, immature and not keeping in the spirit of freedom of speech.

2) I agree that Political Correctness is ridiculous a lot of the time. But I disageee with your example. If a non-black calls a black man the N word then that person deserves to get his ass kicked. Civilized modern societies have already established that racism is evil, destructive and serves no good purpose. Can you give me one example of when maliciously making a racist remark at someone serves a good or constructive purpose? No? Then how can stifling racist sentiments be considered constricting your liberties if such remarks accomplish nothing good? Freely expressing differences of opinion is one thing. Allowing someone to be evil and destructive is another.

3) Whether or not Bush is actually an idiot in the technical, literal sense of the word is arguable. But one thig for sure, the man is an incompetent fool.

4) The first Gulf War was enough to subdue Saddam. He had already learnt his lesson from his first spanking. He was no longer a real threat to anyone. As such, the second war served no useful purpose, seeing as how no WMDs were actually found or that evidence of alleged ties to al-qaeda remain unsubstantiated. The notion that Bush did not clearly state his reasons to invade Iraq is absolute hogwash. Either you weren't watching the news or you think we weren't. I distinctly remember the White House releasing press statements EXPLICITLY indicating the main reason for going to war with Iraq was because of WMDs and links to al-Qaeda, statements which were in NO WAY vague or inarticulate.

5) Being on foreign soil does not waiver your right to free speech. No doubt freedom of speech is granted by the American constitution, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it only applies within US borders. If the foreign country where they made those comments does not prohibit such remarks then why not? If Bush supporters in the US were embarrassed that the DCs comments were made overseas then its their f--king problem. I have heard arguments stating that the comments were unpatriotic especially because they were made on foreign soil. And I find this to be a ludicrous and idiotic point made by people who do not know the real meaning of patriotism. Especially since most Americans who do not support Bush don't have a problem with it.

Reality can destroy the dream; why shouldn't the dream destroy reality?
- George Moore

Allow me to jump in real quick and just ask some hypothethicals in the spirit of lively debate....

1) Death threats and vandalism do not equate to speech since they move beyond the realm of words and enter into the realm of actions. In America, we have laws which limit our actions and the previously mentioned actions do violate those laws. Burning CDs to make a statement and holding protest rallies are actions which do not violate laws if demonstated lawfully. Obviously, an angry fan is not holding to the letter of the law if they burn a CD on the Dixie Chicks' lawn and will suffer the consequences of their actions. See, there's a fine line between appropriate and inappropriate demonstration. Launching a "smear and hate campaign" does nothing to physically damage the bodies or properties of these entertainers so I really can't see where anyone has the right to criticize the demonstrators to reacting to the Dixie Chicks' actions. Just as the Chicks utilized their freedom of speech, so to did the protestors.

2) Words of hate only have power if they are given power. *beep* *beep* Spic, etc are simply words hailing back to an time of ignorance and prejudice. Hopefully, by stripping these words of the power to harm us, we'll neutralize them and future generations will be spared their harm. With that being said, how can you advocate violence over something as harmless as words? In the grand scheme of things, I would think body integrity would be more important than a few hurt feelings. Next time someone throws a racial slur at you or says something derogatory, please recite this little saying, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." I know it's a little childish, but I think our skins have become a little too thin lately so maybe returning to playground antics will toughen us up a bit more.

3) The man managed to survive two elections. He's incredibly intelligent, but I agree with the previous sentiment that he's not very articulate. Though he does not have the highest IQ, he knows enough to gather people around him who do have high IQs and he uses them as advisors. Honestly, unpopularity is not synonomous with idiocy.

4) The government sold us a product. They sold us a War on Terrorism by telling us that they knew what was best for us. A year earlier, some dark skinned fellows from the Middle East hijacked a few planes and flew them into two of our country's tallest buildings, killing thousands of people in a matter of minutes, some being tortured for hours with smoke inhalation, falling debris, and overwhelming heat from spreading fires. We admit it - we were scared. We bought that product. We were already bombing the country which spawned the original terrorists, so our leaders told us we had to take another step - a preemtive step which would prevent more tragedy. Though some of us questioned the link between Afganistan and Iraq, the majority stayed quiet since rooting out the terrorists seemed the only way to stay safe.
Unfortunately for the Bush regime, no weapons were found, but they did accomplish their mission to force a regime change on Iraq which was the ultimate goal of the mission anyway. Bush accomplished with force what Clinton could not do through diplomacy and, in so doing, destroyed the remanants of what made us a democracy. After all that, I can't see how anyone could call that man an idiot. He's got to be the most clever devil we've seen in the last few decades.

5) If I can be allowed the liberty to speak on behalf of the original comment, I don't believe s/he was stating that the freedom of speech is negated by foreign soil. I believe the point of the original post is hypocrisy. The Dixie Chicks did not comment on the war in America; they made their statement in a French concert venue. In effect, they ran off the playground and started gossiping with the people across the street. No one likes to be talked about, least of all the people responsible for your fame. Being country singers, their fan base lays claim to being the most patriotic of all genres. For an entertainer in that genre to insult the political head of their country on foreign soil, they might as well have called all of their American supporters redneck, racist hicks. No, they didn't explicitly say it, but it was how the message was interpreted. The fan reaction should have been forseen even if not all of it was lawful.


__________________________________
I ain't your friend, palooka.

in response to...

1. i think what most people criticize in the protestors/demonstrators is the extent of the reaction. i haven't heard from many people who honestly have a problem with the idea of not buying/destroying their own cd's. you can argue that the vast majority of those people were well within their rights, but also, at the same time, criticize the extent of the reaction.

3. i disagree that bush is incredibly intelligent. he might be book smart, but i don't think he has a lot of intelligence. i think he's a master manipulator and a good actor. but, to each his own.

4. many good points.

5. maines was actually in london, in the u.k., not france. when people argue about where she said it, they should also remember that the comment was made more having to do with the timeline for war rather than their location at the time. they happen to be in london when the deadline came, and said it then because they felt it was important to speak out before the invasion. as it was, they weren't going to be back in the u.s. for awhile.