Bruce Springsteen’s Anti-War Anthem

Bruce Springsteen was on Conan’s this Friday and sang his new antiwar song “Bring ‘Em Home” from the new album “We Shall Overcome: The Seeger Sessions.”

Update: YouTube pulled the plug on it because of a copyright notice (broadcast on public airwaves… whaa?), but it’s still over at Crooks and Liars.

It’s a simple message, perhaps a bit too simple though — should we pull out of Afghanistan as well? I certainly hope we focus back on that one and finishing the legitimate job of hunting down Al Qaida, instead of just going into isolationism. But yeah, we need to pull back over the horizen in Iraq and let them sort out what kind of democracy they want for themselves.

25 Comments
  1. Who wrote that press release from the LP about bringing them home now? Outstanding work. Hopefully someone will pick it up.
    “War. What is it good for? Absolutely nothin'”. sung by the late Edwin Starr.
    M.W.

  2. MHW,

    If you are talking about this one, I’ll take the blame. If not, I’ll try to find the culprit responsible.

    spg

  3. I saw springsteen and the seeger sessions in Iowa, I reccomend it. He made a lot of references to how Bush needed to give more money to Katrina victims, but it was a good show none the less. Another good antiwar song that he played is “Mrs McGrath.”

  4. That was a terribly unsubtle anti-war song that destroyed any political credibility that Bruce Springsteen had.

  5. MHW: The press release says that “With the Libertarian Party solution, all of our troops would have been home by now.” This is a bit different than a message of “bringing them home now”.

    This was released on June 23rd, nearly one year since the LP’s “Iraq Exit Strategy” was released (June 25th, 2005), calling for a gradual withdrawl of all troops over the course of one year. This strategy isn’t featured on the front page, as it’s outdated now, but can still be read at http://www.lp.org/exitplan.pdf

    I wonder how many people there were at last count who showed their online support for this plan? That part’s been taken down now.

  6. Springsteen is a leftist liberal. Bill O’Reilly went on a tirade about Bruce when the ’04 elections were imminent. Bruce insisted that he wasn’t a partisan, but then engaged in all kinds of pro-Kerry stuff. And he’s a leftist liberal.

    That song sucks. Unimaginative, trite and weak in a late sixties antiwar hippie-ish kinda way. No message or credibility. I could go on. Is this the best the antiwar effort can produce? It seems to me that the left always has these kinds of lame slogans they throw around in attempts of refuting or defeating something they don’t like. Well guess what, it never works.

  7. jNice – Last I checked it was in the high 2900’s I think. Since the party marooned any possible political advantage over internal fights like it nearly always does, it really didnt matter.

    Has anyone heard the Neil Young single Impeach the President yet? Has it been released?

  8. Tim,The Neil Young album has been out awhile. Reason made a big deal about how it “only” sold 50,000 copies the first week. I think “Looking for a Leader” was the first single and got some radio play. His entire album was streamed for free on his website at least a couple weeks before it was released. Lackluster sales for “living with War” aside, He is having quite the year as all 3 of his most recent albums( LWW, prairie wind, greatest hits) are now on the Billboard 200 at the same time ( probably because his DVD was just released) and as I type his “Heart of Gold” video from the DVD is playing on VH1.

  9. jnice writes: “MHW: The press release says that “With the Libertarian Party solution, all of our troops would have been home by now.” This is a bit different than a message of “bringing them home now”.
    Yup I know.
    Still good work and thanks to Tom Knapp for clueing me in.
    Guess national isn’t sending these out to the folks any more. Much more important that it gets to the press and of course picked up.
    M.H.W.

  10. “Bring ‘Em Home” was written during the Vietnam War in 1965 by Pete Seeger and originally released on Pete’s 1971 Columbia album, “Young vs. Old.” This a song that is powerful in it’s simplicity like “When Johnny Comes Marching Home.” Anyone who thinks that the song is trite, unimaginitive, or weak has clearly never served his/her country in combat or has known anyone who has.

    Attacking someone’s art because of their politics is nubingly mindless. Read some history…wars never solve anything. They only cause more problems. But if you need a republican reason not to be in Iraq, think of all the hundreds of billions of dollars we could be using here at home to make corporate america richer and more productive.

  11. It’s a sing-along. Designed to get the auditorium full of listeners involved. The art is in the outreach.

  12. Am I allowed to release press releases in the name of the party? when I joined th Leon County Libertarians, there were only 4 people at the meetings, and then two, then none, and today i got a letter saying that the party has “run out of gas” and wont be meeting anymore. Does that make me the new head of teh Leon County Libertarians?
    How does that work? Someone direct me (e-mail) to whom I am supposed to talk to about that.

  13. It’s a simple message, perhaps a bit too simple though ”” should we pull out of Afghanistan as well?

    Yes, of course. But if you must insist on staying there, would you at least fund it exclusively through those people that support the occupation?

    An added bonus would be if you did not claim to be acting in the name of all the American people, subjecting us all to justified blowback, and instead just put corporate logos all over the tanks, planes, bombs, guns, uniforms, etc to pay for it, making clear that it is a war of, by and for the corporations.

    With everone from FOX news to Halliburton to GE to Lockheed-Martin, not to mention Exxon, Mobil BP and Shell participating, there should be no more need for tax money to support continued occupation.

  14. Paulie,

    You write:

    “With everone from FOX news to Halliburton to GE to Lockheed-Martin, not to mention Exxon, Mobil BP and Shell participating, there should be no more need for tax money to support continued occupation.”

    Err … where do you think that Halliburton, GE and Lockheed-Martin would get the money they’d use to “sponsor” the activities?

    If Afghanistan had been about liquidating al Qaeda or capturing/killing bin Laden, BushCo wouldn’t have fucked around with “regime change” in the lowlands for six weeks before turning their attention to the (by then mostly absent) AQ/OBL.

    Afghanistan (and, substantially, Iraq) was, and is, mostly about keeping the “defense” contractor pork served up hot, in the biggest possible portions, for as long as possible. As for the mission of liquidating al Qaeda and capturing or killing Osama bin Laden, the only question is whether BushCo has the mission set to “benign neglect” or “active avoidance.”

  15. TLK,

    You’re right, but I’m sure at least some of the companies listed would still be profitable without government contracts – like the petrol interests, perhaps? Well, then again, maybe not….especially if we did not have limited liability or “drug laws” which prevent hemp based fuel.

    But, then again, without the drug laws, perhaps opium importers would finance their own private war against Afghani fundamentalists.

    In any case, I don’t care how they do it, so long as it isn’t in my name or with money stolen from me. I wish they would stop, but I don’t think we can solve all the problems in the world. I’m more concerned that they keep me out of it.

    Even with a growing majority against the war, I believe they could still finance it with voluntary contributions from those idiots (no offense meant to any here) who support the invasion and occupation.

  16. In somewhat-related news, I forwarded your impeachment resolution and instructions for passage to a list of people, just to let you know, since it may be getting caught in your spam filter.

    I did not find any problems with the language.

  17. There is no need to pull out of Afghanistan…we simply need to invade Pakistan. Afghanistan is like the above ground section of a weed, you can cut it off and it will grow right back. Pakistan is the root, and they should be exterminated.

  18. Herman,

    Who is we?

    If you have a privately funded group which wants to invade Pakistan, have fun and lots of luck (getting blown up, or perhaps being captured and screwed in the ass before being beheaded on video).

    If you mean you want the US regime to steal more tax money to invade more countries in my name, I must object.

    Leave my money and my name out of it, and you have my blessings to go forth and conquer (a nice burial plot).

  19. WHoops, nevermind. When I realized I was talking to THE Herman B. Hayes, I re-considered my postion. Certainly, “we” should invade Pakistan! And then march on through India, China, and North Korea!

    Why, what could be better?

  20. What about Bosnia? Kinda of hurts credability yo protest one without mentioning the other

  21. >should we pull out of Afghanistan as well?

    Hell Yes! This nation building shit is absurd and it’s clear our government masters have no intention of catching Bin Ladden even if they had the ability. How many more Americans should die for the fools errand that is the war in Afganistan?

%d bloggers like this: