Comedienne-turned-peace-activist Janeane Garofalo offered a stunning admission on Sunday, explaining that she and her fellow anti-war protesters didn’t stage huge demonstrations when President Clinton launched attacks on Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan and the Sudan because “it wasn’t very hip” to protest the former president.
Asked why peace protesters like herself didn’t object to Clinton’s wars, Garofalo explained:
“I absolutely did. I did not support Operation Desert Fox. It’s just that you didn’t know me very well back then. Nobody really was interested in listening to me back then.”
Then she added, by way of explaining why the anti-Clinton protests never gelled, “It wasn’t very hip.”
Garofalo went on to claim that Hollywood actors Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins led protests against Clinton’s 1998 Iraq attack, saying that “there was a lot of protest, just as there was against the first Gulf War.”
A Lexis-Nexis search for December 1998, the month Clinton bombed the daylights out of Baghdad, failed to turn up a single report that mentioned either Sarandon or Robbins protesting the attacks.
A similar search for the month of February 2003 turned up 124 reports on Sarandon protesting President Bush’s Iraq policy.
It sure is a good thing we have all these movie stars and musicians to tell us what sacrifices are worth making, and to spell out the proper course of action in charged international political climates.
I mean, of course they know what’s best–they’re famous!
The tone of the article and the manner in which it took a single quote out of context, using that as a springboard for a series of generalities about Democratic celebrities being hypocritical idiots suggested a far right wing agenda.
It’s showing up elsewhere, as noted from this Media Notes column found on the Washington Post website. You have to fill out a quick survey so I’ve cut the relevant part to this thread.
Antiwar actors get a good bashing as partisan hypocrites from OpinionJournal’s John Fund:
"Hollywood celebrities have become the most visible opponents of liberating Iraq. But as proof that where you stand depends on whether your friends are in power, let’s look back at how those same celebrities reacted when Bill Clinton deployed U.S. power in Afghanistan, Sudan and Kosovo.
"Actor Mike Farrell, best known for his role as Trapper John’s replacement in ‘MAS*H,’ has emerged as a leading antiwar activist. . . . But in 1999, Mr. Farrell defended the Clinton administration’s rationale for war in Kosovo: ‘I think it’s appropriate for the international community in situations like this to intervene. I am in favor of an intervention.’ To avoid casualties, the Clinton administration had bombers fly at such high altitudes that ‘collateral damage’ to civilians was bound to increase.
"Hollywood stars were oddly silent when Mr. Clinton dropped bombs on Afghanistan and an aspirin factory in Sudan in 1998 in an unsuccessful attempt to deter Osama bin Laden. They were silent when, also in 1998, Mr. Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law and made regime change official U.S. policy. Andrew Breitbart, who is writing a book on Hollywood, jokes that ‘to not notice this, the stars would have to have been sleeping in the Lincoln Bedroom, or perhaps performing at the White House.’
"Indeed, in 1999 singer Judy Collins–best known for her soulful renditions of antiwar songs–actually sang at a White House gala at the very moment that U.S. and NATO bombs were flattening parts of Belgrade–accidentally destroying the Chinese Embassy in the process.
“Similarly, singer Sheryl Crow is appalled by George Bush’s moves against Iraq, but she had no problem with Bill Clinton’s intervention in the Balkans. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the singer accompanied Hillary Clinton on a USO tour to entertain U.S. troops in Bosnia.”
Bill O’Reilly said he met with several upper level stars, directors, and producers in L.A. this past week that were for removing Saddam on a condition of anonymity. He said the majority did not feel like they could come out in support of the president or they would lose work and be railed on by their liberal peers in the biz. Whether its 100% true or not, who knows. He was in LA all last week appearing with Jay Leno and does have a lot of connections where he could have put together a clandestine meeting like this. I would not be surprised if it were true.
I believe it. Hollywood is almost like college campuses these days. For all their talk of tolerance, they’ll tolerate you so long as you tow the (usually) liberal party line. And God forbid you espouse something else. I’ve had it happen to me. One of my conservative opinion columnists wrote a piece in the college paper advocating the eliniation of racial preferences and quotas for admissions. You can’t believe how many pissed off people called me up (I was the editor) and screamed at me for being a bigot by allowing that piece to run. I didn’t even write it, but it was guilt by association for me.
And when I tried to explain to them that all I was doing was allowing a perfectly legitimate political viewpoint be aired for debate and discussion, they wouldn’t have it. I still got accused of being a racist.
So yeah, Hollywood is tolerant of all viewpoints, so long as it’s the ones they share.
Then on the opposite end of Hollywood you have the country music establishment. The Dixie Chicks are getting banned on country statiions now for their anti-war remarks. It’s too bad that both pro-war and anti-war sides can’t at least agree to be pro-free speech.
AS with most issues, it comes down to a deluge of ignorance in America’s population.
If you are Republican, you have to be rich and white, care nothing about people at a lower station than you, and hate everything democrats believe in no matter what it is.
If you are a Democrat, you like killing babies, are a socialist, and hate everything republicans believe no matter what it is.
With the majority of U.S. citizens falling into one of the two categories above and believeing in those stereotypical examples, which many do, there is no room for compromise or understanding on any issue. Especially, one as volatile as war.
It sucks. Good thing all of us here are enlightened and do not have to worry about all of that partisanship. :)
Oh come on. That’s about the pussyish thing I’ve ever heard.
If they don’t have the guts to stand by their convictions, fuck 'em. They don’t deserve to have a voice on the issue.
If they lose work based on their political views, they can sue, as Sean Penn has done recently.
The entertainers who have come out against the war are putting their careers on the line; anti-war is not the “safe” choice. People like O’Reilly, Savage, Limbaugh, and Hannity, who practically accuse these actors of being traitors on a daily basis, have HUGE audiences of people just waiting to launch a boycott. Look what happened to Bill Maher.
Claiming you have a list of anonymous people to support your political position that you refuse to reveal was discredited forever when Joe McCarthy pulled that shit back in the HUAC era. Give us names or shut up, Bill.
This may be unpopular, but I really hesitate to lump O’Reilly in with the rest of those party mouthpieces that preach to the converted.
O’Reilly definitely comes from the right, but he hammers people on both sides of the aisle. His no Spin Zone gimmick has outlasted its usefulness. His hammering of some actors as Un-American is past getting old, but he truly believes they are. Its his opinion, I do not agree, but I cannot dismiss everything he says because I disagree on a few points. That is why I believe he wanted to talk to some with opposing views from the actors we see on the news at rallies. Yes they are pansies for not expressing their feelings, but acting is all about image and in that town it is bad form to support war.
I really could not stomach O’Reilly at first, but when his radio show started I listened a couple of times. He’s dry-witted, funny, and, IMO, actually believes in what he says and rails against. He is much more laid back and kids around a lot. I despise the other 3 you mentioned. They just echo the party line to hordes of blind followers which gladly listen daily.
That’s my peace. So many talk show people get forced to one side or the other before people give them a chance. I had pre-conceived notions about O’Reilly as a Limbaugh/Sean Hannity clone. Once I heard him on the radiowaves, I came to the conclusion that this simply was not true.
I loved Bill Maher, but he could be just as obnoxious while shouting from the top of his liberal platform as some of the conservatives are from theirs. Him being forced out was insane. He made an off hand remark which was then taken completely out of context and warped on talk radio and in the media. Lott and Moran now know what that can do to you. Screwing up in front of a camera can be more damaging than one would imagine. I hope it does not lead to people stifling their thoughts in fear of reprecussions as it may have for Bush supporters in Hollywood.
I agree, O’Reilly doesn’t say things just to get attention, or spout a stream of rhetoric like the others, he seems pretty level headed and just uses common sense. I think if he saw something that went against his beliefs but he knew was wrong, that he would say something. Unlike the others who practice willful ommision.
And PLEASE don’t mix up Bill Maher’s fucked up little philosophy on the bravery of the high jackers with being anti-war. There’s a HUGE difference between not wanting people to die, and praising people for taking a hands-on approach to murder. I never liked the prick, he’s just not funny and will shout down anybody who has a different opinion, but what he said was as wrong as what Billy Graham said.
It’s easy to live in a mansion and make millions a year and picture a lollipop world where everything can be solved by flower power, your enemies are noble men, and everyone who disagrees with you is an evil war mongering money hungry beast.
I don’t see much common sense about this O’Reilly quote:
"Once the war against Saddam Hussein begins, we expect every American to support our military, and if you can’t do that, just shut up. Americans, and indeed our foreign allies who actively work against our military once the war is underway, will be considered enemies of the state by me. Just fair warning to you, Barbara Streisand and others who see the world as you do. I don’t want to demonize anyone, but anyone who hurts this country in a time like this, well. Let’s just say you will be spotlighted.
The guy apparently doesn’t believe in the basic principles of American free speech. Someone should tell him to love it or leave it…
Oooohhh I assumed that censorship and the denial of free speach starts when you actually DO something, or refuse to show something, instead of when you make a suggestion. Gee, I guess anyone who’s ever threatened violence against me can be arrested for assualt now! (that’s a lot of people).
Then again I’ve no idea when, where, or what this quote is aboutm so I can’t say much. As Benjemin Franklin once said ‘Ever…y…thing once says ca…n be ta…ke…n out of con…tex…t a…ss…hole.’
Man, the straight-talking man of the people thing is a complete put-on. He’s the son of rich parents, from the suburbs, and a complete buchanan-style reactionary. He did say that homosexuality was no big deal, which takes a pretty cast-iron set, considering his friends, but still.
Check this out. O’Reilly screams at an anti-war guy whose (anti-war) father died in the WTC.
“The guy apparently doesn’t believe in the basic principles of American free speech. Someone should tell him to love it or leave it…”
I think he’s saying this to at least seperate the soldiers from the politicians. It comes from the stories of people who spit and railed at the soldeirs that came back from vietnam. In other words don’t slam the 20 yr old soldier becasue of your disagreement of the politicians decision to send them. They don’t have any say in it, there just a grunt.