So now the Right wing is going after the ancient frontman for The Rolling Stones, over the lyrics to a song on their upcoming album, called "Sweet Neo-Con." Why? Dissent on the part of a British citizen shouldn't warrant a full-press assault from all the usual suspects -- Rush, Hannity, Fox News, etc. The attempt to discredit Jagger, to build up support to boycott the new album, even coerce ABC to fire the Rolling Stones from their upcoming appearances on Monday Night Football...it's more of the same. No real point to it, other than to inflame like-minded people to hate an easily-identifiable group of foreigners.

The Right could have completely ignored the song...rather than give the band a ton of free publicity, ignoring the song and album would have a greater impact on the Stones' record sales than this near-constant carping about Mick Jagger's free speech rights.

Attacking him, hard on the heels of slamming Cindy Sheehan's legitimate anger (she lost her son for God's sake!) and legal dissent as akin to treason, is just more distraction and "us vs. them" pandering.

From a technical/legal point of view, if George W. Bush or Condaleezza Rice wish to make an issue of a song that supposedly insults or attacks them, then they would have the option of pursuing a defamation suit. Going beyond defamation, libel and slander to attacking anyone who dissents is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes.