The Oprah Schnook Club
Thom Wilkerson
Ben Shapiro townhall.com
March 19, 2003
Oprah Winfrey is the most powerful woman in America. She decides what
makes the New York Times best-seller lists.
Her touchy-feely style sucks in audiences at the rate of 14 million
viewers per day.
But Oprah is far more than a cultural force -- she's a dangerous
political force as well, a woman with unpredictable and mercurial
attitudes toward the major issues of the day.
Her ignorant views and wacky reasoning shape the views of millions.
Oprah's latest target: the war in Iraq. In what previews described as an
eye-opening hour, Oprah used her bully pulpit on March 18 to slam the
United States and George W. Bush. Her guests were anti-war Fawaz Gergez,
a professor of Middle Eastern Studies at Sarah Lawrence College, and
"pro-war" New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. Of course, both
Gergez and Friedman were anti-Bush.
Oprah also showed part of Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine," which
lambastes American foreign policy. "It resonated with a lot of people,
me included," she sweetly informed. When Friedman (remember, he's
supposed to provide balance) stated that "the Bush administration is
going to have to have an attitude lobotomy," Oprah laughed out loud.
After showing a clip of young Muslim man ripping America, Oprah noted:
"What he said sounded like what I've heard from people of color all over
the world."
On Oprah's website, she sports a "What You Should Know About Iraq" page.
In the "After the Show" section of the page, she mocks her viewers: "If
we were to have a test right now on American foreign policy, most of you
would call in sick and come back next Tuesday!"
To help all of her poor, ignorant fans, Oprah put up an "Iraq 101"
section on her website.
One problem -- the primer is loaded with basic factual errors.
For instance, the site states "The Turks of the Ottoman Empire gained
control of Iraq in the 16th century and held it until after World War I,
when the British took control." According to The New York Times Almanac,
the British took control of Iraq in 1915, near the beginning of World
War I.
The website also states that the Sunni population in Iraq composes 20
percent of the total Iraqi population -- the real number is above 30
percent.
But these are merely historical errors. The most egregious mistakes are
blatantly political. "Iraq 101" says that the Gulf War of 1991 began "in
the skies over Baghdad," completely neglecting to mention that the
reason for the war was Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and subsequent
refusal to withdraw. The site also indirectly blames the deaths of
200,000 civilians from disease and starvation following the war on the
war itself, not on Saddam's refusal to comply with U.N. resolutions.
The most insidious "fact" is the website's description of United Nations
Resolution 1441: "In November 2002, the United Nations Security Council
unanimously passed a new resolution demanding that Iraq allow weapons
inspectors into the country. Iraq denies having any weapons of mass
destruction, but the United States and Britain are demanding that Iraq
disarm completely, or else face military action."
Wrong. U.N. Resolution 1441 calls for Saddam's immediate voluntary
disarmament, not only the return of weapons inspectors.
If Saddam refused to disarm, the United Nations authorized "serious
consequences."
Oprah's website makes it sound as though the United States and Britain
are holding Iraq to a higher standard than that put in place by the
United Nations. It's an obvious attempt to paint the "coalition of the
willing" as aggressors in violation of international law.
This is 180 degrees from October 2002, when Oprah appeared to push
regime change in Iraq.
On Oct. 9, 2002, she hosted Kenneth Pollack, the author of "The
Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq," as well as Entifadh
Qanbarid, the president of the Iraqi National Congress. Both of them
made extremely compelling cases for invasion, Pollack from a national
security angle and Qanbarid from a human rights angle.
Oprah also spoke to Elie Wiesel, Holocaust survivor and 1986 Nobel Peace
Prize winner; Wiesel made an emotional plea for American intervention.
After the show, AlterNet, a left-wing publication, ran an article asking
if Oprah was a "warmonger."
Oprah's audience is composed mainly of busy soccer moms who simply don't
have the time to research political issues.
They take Oprah's word as gospel.
She portrays herself as all-knowing, all-caring, all-wise -- after all,
she's qualified to teach "Iraq 101."
Oprah's opinions vacillate as quickly as her weight, and she plays fast
and loose with the facts. When she waxes political, her audience should
change the channel.
,<^>,<^>,<^>,<^>,<^>,<^>,<^>,<^>,<^>,
=They accepted dishonour to have peace.
They will have their dishonour, and war. --
Winston Churchill - 1938
dari
news:<12077-3E7...@storefull-2352.public.lawson.webtv.net>...
> Oprah's audience is composed mainly of busy soccer moms who simply don't
> have the time to research political issues.
Um, that is where you are wrong. I am a Vice President of a coporation and
very well-educated. I watch Oprah. Are you surprised?
It's called free speech. Oprah has no less rights to it than you. It's what
makes this company great. Isn't that what we're fighting for? So that
Iraquis can have the same freedoms we enjoy??
IAPW
dari <sssu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Um, that is where you are wrong. I am a Vice President of a coporation and
>very well-educated. I watch Oprah. Are you surprised?
>
>It's called free speech. Oprah has no less rights to it than you. It's what
>makes this company great. Isn't that what we're fighting for? So that
>Iraquis can have the same freedoms we enjoy??
You must be kidding right? I thought what we're fighting for was to make
this world safe for Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism.
Thom Wilkerson
>It's called free speech. Oprah has no
> less rights to it than you. It's what
> makes this company great. Isn't that
>freedoms we enjoy??
I never said (not did the essayist) that she has no rights to her free
speech, just that her facts and thinking was full of errors.
Also, your logic as well is quite faulty (which proves the point to me
that you must indeed watch and believe whatever Oprah spouts).
Since Oprah believes that the USA is wrong to depose the Butcher of
Baghdad, who tyrannically deprives Iraqis of their Four Freedoms, how
does she believe the Iraqis are ever supposed to gain the same freedoms
that we enjoy?
Do you honestly think Hans Blix will somehow magically 'discover' their
freedoms while hunting for Saddam's hidden WMD?
DreamWeaver8080
>have the time to research political issues.
>They take Oprah's word as gospel.
>She portrays herself as all-knowing, all-caring, all-wise -- after all,
>she's qualified to teach "Iraq 101."
>
Interesting post. Frankly, I think this is just another example of a celebrity
using their status to push their views. I don't pay any attention to the
political views of celebrities. Ofcourse, on the other hand, by espousing
their causes publicly, people can choose whether they want to spend their time
or money going to see their films and shows.
However, Oprah's audience isn't composed of only soccer Moms. My daughter is a
student in a masters program and she watches it. I am a teacher and sometimes
I do. I know of many women who are doing different things that watch Oprah
faithfully.
That doesn't mean they are going to swallow causes she espouses hook, line and
sinker. Also, busy soccer moms also watch the news and keep up. They aren't
riding around in their SUV's all day oblivous to world affairs. Soccer moms
are not only working at home but they also work outside the home in all types
of professions. Rachel