Hollywood Hypocrisy

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Oh god these hollywood people should know by now that tape records all. Here's a short run down of the complete hypocrites these Hollywood "anti-war" people are. Turns out when a Democrat is in charge they are hawks.



<a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110003188"; target="_blank">Stars and Gripes</a>



[quote]Actor Mike Farrell, best known for his role as Trapper John's replacement in "M*A*S*H," has emerged as a leading antiwar activist. This month, he even engaged in a surreal debate on geopolitics with former senator Fred Thompson on "Meet the Press." "It is inappropriate," Farrell declared, "for the administration to trump up a case in which we are ballyhooed into war."



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."



then later



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. "Once over there, I felt extremely patriotic," Ms. Crow told a reporter that year. "Here are these people, from 18-year-olds to military veterans, enduring real duress for the cause of peace. I don't ever want to play for a regular audience again, only military folks who are starving for music."



still later



Here is President Clinton on Iraq in 1998: "What if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? .Â*.Â*. Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."

<hr></blockquote>



Now Clinton is all against it? :confused:



Someone needs to call these hypocrite on this.



I snipped most of it out but the whole thing is worth a read.



[ 03-13-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]



[ 03-13-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</p>
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 22
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    [quote]Originally posted by Scott:

    <strong>Oh god these hollywood people should know by now that tape records all. Here's a short run down of the complete hypocrites these Hollywood "anti-war" people are. Turns out when a Democrat is in charge they are hawks.



    <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110003188"; target="_blank">Stars and Gripes</a>







    Now Clinton is all against it? :confused:



    Someone needs to call these hypocrite on this.



    I snipped most of it out but the whole thing is worth a read.



    [ 03-13-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]



    [ 03-13-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    They did not call Bill Clinton slick for nothing. These people are intellectually bankrupt. Those who vouch for and stick up for these people are just as intellectually bankrupt if not flat out dishonest. I believe it is a combination of the two. Truly a sad way to stumble through life.



    Fellowship
  • Reply 2 of 22
    I don´t see any problem with that.



    When we wngaged in war in former jugoslavia there was people dying in a war. In Iraq there isn´t. My attitude towards the war then was the same as those celebs (and you are a fool if you think its a Clinton vs. Bush-thing for me). There was an urgent need to stop it fast (and that the europeans couldn´t handle it itself and needed to call in US is a disgrace and is much more importent lesson for us today than WWII is)
  • Reply 3 of 22
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    People are dying in Iraq. But this whole nonsense about being for "intervention" and ... well not being for it now it bullshit. The case against Iraq is better than the case for the Balkins.
  • Reply 4 of 22
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    [quote]Originally posted by Scott:

    <strong>People are dying in Iraq. But this whole nonsense about being for "intervention" and ... well not being for it now it bullshit. The case against Iraq is better than the case for the Balkins.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Indeed. Both are places we would not want to live as things stand or stood under the repression and killing. The only difference is that in the first case we helped out Europe. Can't say the same for some...



    OK let's have it.... How America only helped to profit from the deal...



    Better yet let's not hear that. I for one am fed up with the BS.



    Fellowship
  • Reply 5 of 22
    I think at its peak, things were more serious in the Balkans than currently in Iraq. Milosevic was committing all out genocide. I have relatives in Croatia and Yugoslavia and they are SO happy the U.S. intervened because they were afraid for their lives for years. Clinton was right to go into the Balkans, and we were successful in that operation. We took out the Serbs and Milosevic along with it. Now he and his generals are on trial for war crimes. I support action in Iraq. Something has to be done, and the U.N. doesn't seem to be the one willing to do it. If something isn't done soon, it could be as bad as the Kosovo conflict. Hollywood stars have no more influence than any other American. In a recent poll, 89% of people polled said they don't consider the opinions of Hollywood's own in their views on the war, and I don't either.
  • Reply 6 of 22
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    [quote]Originally posted by filmmaker2002:

    <strong>I think at its peak, things were more serious in the Balkans than currently in Iraq. Milosevic was committing all out genocide. I have relatives in Croatia and Yugoslavia and they are SO happy the U.S. intervened because they were afraid for their lives for years. Clinton was right to go into the Balkans, and we were successful in that operation. We took out the Serbs and Milosevic along with it. Now he and his generals are on trial for war crimes. I support action in Iraq. Something has to be done, and the U.N. doesn't seem to be the one willing to do it. If something isn't done soon, it could be as bad as the Kosovo conflict. Hollywood stars have no more influence than any other American. In a recent poll, 89% of people polled said they don't consider the opinions of Hollywood's own in their views on the war, and I don't either.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I agree 100%



    I hope your relatives are doing good



    Fellowship
  • Reply 7 of 22
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    EDIT: When Scott did it it was stupefyingly annoying, and rubbing his face in it by doing it too doesn't make it any more bareable. Move along now.



    [ 03-13-2003: Message edited by: Harald ]</p>
  • Reply 8 of 22
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    I actually think the people you're accusing of intellectual bankruptcy are more honest than most of the anti-war losers.



    Most of the people actively protesting a war in Iraq protest against ANY war. They simply live in an unreal world. I think that to be completely honest and realistic, you need to be able to say "look, this is what will achieve the best outcome for the world as a whole".



    In some cases, this means the last resort (war). In others, it doesn't. While there were hiccups (understatement), the Balkans conflict was over relativly quickly and was multilateral. The ethnic Albanians are in a better situation than if no action was taken. That is, they are alive.



    I think it is the most honest position to assert that not all wars are the same.



    Barto
  • Reply 9 of 22
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    I think that the motivations of Clinton and the entertainers in question (and most of the peace activists) are quite different. Clinton sees this as an international power play (one which the Bush administration has botched completely.) What's at stake in his mind is America's diplomatic influence, what the power structure of the diplomatic world looks like after the bumbling bush administration leaves American relations in ruins. (not so dramatic, but that's exactly what he sees) The Germans, the French, the Turks, the Koreans, hell, even the Arabs are badly outplaying the Americans and it never should have come to that. Sad, because Bush started off so well, and has just been outplayed everywhere, this includes the lack-luster performances of Rumsfeld and especially Powel, who has, if nothing else, resolutely proved he is nothing more than the token black diplomat.



    What the entertainer's see, OTOH, is just embarrasingly naive for any adult. If oil is potentially involved, thenit must be bad, because business is bad. That's fine, believe big business is bad if you want too, but as an entertainer you're a leader in one of the biggest businesses, big business is making you very very rich, so mebbe it's time to come off the high horse? But it isn't even that, like many people in web fora and on college campuses, they cannot grasp the simple concept that sometimes disparate interests coalesce. Big oil and America Inc will benefit from the removal of Sadam, but so will the Iraqis, their peace stance amounts to the ridiculous proposition that, we mustn't aid the Iraqi people by ousting a genocidal dictator because unfortunately this will also benefit our oil interests. Idiotic. Sure the timing favors the oil side of our motivational forensics, but who cares? This is politics, results are real and reasons are for rhetoric.



    Don't mistake me, there are very good anti-war arguments to be made, but oil isn't one of them.



    Ironically, if not for term limits, Clinton would still be president, Iraq would probably have been bulldozed months ago, and most of the world would have followed along without complaint. Clinton's political gifts are that far ahead of Bush that he would have parlayed 9-11 into successful military and political action with transparent ease, even the democrats (and most of the activists too) would be happy to see Clinton dust a few Arab states.



    But hey, that's just me, providing the answers nobody wants to hear.
  • Reply 10 of 22
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    Yes, if there is something that Clinton was the master of, it was diplomacy.



    But people have to remember that the Kosovo force was sent to keep the peace and was part of an international force. One of the things that the actors are saying is that it's not good for us to act alone.



    As for Clinton in 1998, we didn't send ground forces in. Instead, the problem was contained. Clinton favors the plan that the British have proposed- a plan that was not unlike his own in the late 90s.



    But when Clinton tried to do his job back then, he had to deal with BS like impeachment simultaneously and Republicans cried, "Wag the Dog!" whenever he wanted to do anything. Are you willing to admit the Republicans were hypocrites as well?



    [quote] These people are intellectually bankrupt. Those who vouch for and stick up for these people are just as intellectually bankrupt if not flat out dishonest. I believe it is a combination of the two. Truly a sad way to stumble through life.<hr></blockquote>



    If you called 'these people' naive, you would have made an opinionated argument that supports your position. You could have said, "I know they don't want war but here's why we need to do it and why we need to support it."



    But to call them intellectually bankrupt because they don't support your position? That's what's sad. Who are you (of all people) to tear someone down because of their beliefs? If someone says anything that's remotely against religion, you are the first to cry "Bigot".



    But you feel justified in calling people intellectually bankrupt and flat out dishonest just because they don't support the same position as you?



    These actors favored action when Clinton was in office when the international community supported action. This was an international situation.



    But now, in Iraq, the international community is not with the United States on this issue, so they do not support action. They are also being crucified here at in the United States because of it (look at France).



    The other big difference between now and then is that the Republican Party does not like the UN. I think if they had their way, we would not be part of the UN since they show their contempt for it every chance they get.



    Look at Republican diplomacy. Here's the question: The French are going to veto our UN resolution. How can we get them to go with us on this?



    Answer: Pass anti-French legislation renaming French Fries and French toast. When it doesn't work, they rename Chicken Fried Steak to French Fried Steak the next day, implying the French are chickens.



    How is this diplomacy? I don't care if you liked Clinton or not, but he could control the international community, something that Bush cannot. He was the master when it came to these types of situations where Bush is an amateur.



    Well I'm sure I have a different viewpoint of Fellowship. I must be flat out dishonest and intellectually bankrupt. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />



    [ 03-13-2003: Message edited by: Fran441 ]</p>
  • Reply 11 of 22
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    [quote]Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook:

    <strong>



    I agree 100%



    I hope your relatives are doing good



    Fellowship</strong><hr></blockquote>If you agree 100% with his post then you are saying that things were more serious in Kosovo!!!!!



    who the hell is intellectually bankrupt, he never said that because he supports the war he also sees no difference between the two, . . . in fact, before he said that he supported the war he seemed to be drawing a conclusion that Kosovo had a different set of exigencies.



    How did a semi-educated bible thumper turn into an arrogant psuedo-intellectual who also seems to think that he is right all the time, to the point that he starts to call others names!?!?!?!?



    ---



    Kosovo was an intervention in a war and a genocide, this war (which I am increasingly starting to see as a need though, as it stands, I think we can wait for some better diplomacy) is an invasion of a soveriegn nation without any direct provocation by that nation



    What's so hypocritical about that very obviouse distinction



    What gets me is how people who think of themselves as patriots (like me) do not find that there has been some strange and very 'unnatural' shift in the assumed role of America when it starts to invade without direct provocation . . . . "America", my America that I love, is not supposed to do that kind of thing, that is usually up to the bad guy)
  • Reply 12 of 22
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    [quote]Originally posted by Matsu:

    <strong>I think that the motivations of Clinton and the entertainers in question (and most of the peace activists) are quite different. Clinton sees this as an international power play (one which the Bush administration has botched completely.) What's at stake in his mind is America's diplomatic influence, what the power structure of the diplomatic world looks like after the bumbling bush administration leaves American relations in ruins. (not so dramatic, but that's exactly what he sees) The Germans, the French, the Turks, the Koreans, hell, even the Arabs are badly outplaying the Americans and it never should have come to that. Sad, because Bush started off so well, and has just been outplayed everywhere, this includes the lack-luster performances of Rumsfeld and especially Powel, who has, if nothing else, resolutely proved he is nothing more than the token black diplomat.



    What the entertainer's see, OTOH, is just embarrasingly naive for any adult. If oil is potentially involved, thenit must be bad, because business is bad. That's fine, believe big business is bad if you want too, but as an entertainer you're a leader in one of the biggest businesses, big business is making you very very rich, so mebbe it's time to come off the high horse? But it isn't even that, like many people in web fora and on college campuses, they cannot grasp the simple concept that sometimes disparate interests coalesce. Big oil and America Inc will benefit from the removal of Sadam, but so will the Iraqis, their peace stance amounts to the ridiculous proposition that, we mustn't aid the Iraqi people by ousting a genocidal dictator because unfortunately this will also benefit our oil interests. Idiotic. Sure the timing favors the oil side of our motivational forensics, but who cares? This is politics, results are real and reasons are for rhetoric.



    Don't mistake me, there are very good anti-war arguments to be made, but oil isn't one of them.



    Ironically, if not for term limits, Clinton would still be president, Iraq would probably have been bulldozed months ago, and most of the world would have followed along without complaint. Clinton's political gifts are that far ahead of Bush that he would have parlayed 9-11 into successful military and political action with transparent ease, even the democrats (and most of the activists too) would be happy to see Clinton dust a few Arab states.



    But hey, that's just me, providing the answers nobody wants to hear.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    I agree
  • Reply 13 of 22
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    [quote]Originally posted by Matsu:

    <strong>

    But hey, that's just me, providing the answers nobody wants to hear.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Would you be quiet?



  • Reply 14 of 22
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,015member
    "No direct provocation"



    <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />



    1. Violating the orginal ceasfire.

    2. Comitting his own genocide

    3. Firing on coalition aircraft

    4. Openly praising 9/11

    5. Violating 1441



    Thank you.





    Now, Fran:



    "These actors favored action when Clinton was in office when the international community supported action. This was an international situation.



    But now, in Iraq, the international community is not with the United States on this issue, so they do not support action. They are also being crucified here at in the United States because of it (look at France)."



    We DO have international support...certainly as much as there was for Kosovo. We didn't even have a UN resoltuion behind us. The main opponents are France and Russia, with China sort of on board with them as well. Last time I checked, we had about 60 countries on our side.
  • Reply 15 of 22
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    [quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:

    <strong>1. Violating the orginal ceasfire.

    2. Comitting his own genocide

    3. Firing on coalition aircraft

    4. Openly praising 9/11

    5. Violating 1441



    Thank you.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>

    See, what I don't understand is when exactly did such a questionable list become reason enough for America to take the role of Invader



    and the reason I say questionable is ot because I on't see those infractions as real but that many of them have been answered each in its own way and some of them are subject to proof and a need for real stas:

    for instance: firing on our planes has always resulted in th eattack against that which 'locked on' and that which fired . . . why it continues despite that fact is anyone's guess . . . especially when it results in net loss for Iraq and no loss for the US. reason enough for an Invasion?!? no



    His own genocide: he was known for this sort of thing when he was our buddy . . . what happened then, we gave him weapons and money . . . besides,I want stats here . . . I am willing to admit he is a cruel dictator, but show me numbers and proof of genocide.



    Praising 911 . . . reason to invade . . . I'll let you answer that one.



    Violating 1441: 1441 is an international treaty, get an appropriate coalition through decent diplomacy, then go to war. . . . not some makeshift, backroom, Camaroon-Antigua-Quatar-US, coalition... something that matters
  • Reply 16 of 22
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    [quote]Key elements of U.N. resolution:



    Some key elements of the U.N. Security Council resolution authorize an international force to move into Kosovo and provide for the safe return of an estimated 860,000 ethnic Albanian refugees.



    RESOLUTION SPONSORS:



    Sponsors of the resolution are the eight countries whose foreign ministers drew up the measure in Cologne, Germany, the United States, Russia, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan. The Netherlands, Slovenia and Ukraine also joined as co-sponsors.

    <hr></blockquote>



    So you really want to tell me that the US has equal support for War now as they did with the Kosovo Peace Keeping mission?



    Here's the rest FYI.



    [quote]

    POLITICAL AND SECURITY SOLUTIONS:



    The resolution calls for an international peacekeeping force with NATO at its core to be deployed to Kosovo for an initial 12 months and indefinitely beyond then unless the Security Council decides otherwise.



    The force is responsible for deterring renewed hostilities, demilitarizing the Kosovo Liberation Army, the rebel group of ethnic Albanians, and establishing a secure environment for refugees to return.



    The resolution authorizes U.N. member states and international organizations to use "all necessary means" to implement its provisions.



    INTERNATIONAL CIVIL PRESENCE:



    The resolution authorizes the U.N. secretary-general to establish an interim civilian administration for Kosovo that would allow for the return of refugees and promote the establishment of substantial autonomy and self-government for the province within Yugoslavia.



    The administration would establish a local police force and oversee the development of provisional democratic institutions, including elections, based on the Rambouillet accords. It would support the economic reconstruction of Kosovo and help with humanitarian and disaster relief.



    A special representative of the secretary-general would oversee the civilian administration.



    COOPERATION WITH WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL:



    The resolution demands full cooperation by all governments and the international security force in Kosovo with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic was indicted by the tribunal for crimes against humanity last month.



    ECONOMIC RECONSTRUCTION:



    The resolution encourages governments and international organizations to contribute to the economic and social reconstruction of Kosovo and emphasizes the need to convene a donors' conference as soon as possible. It welcomes work by the European Union and other international organizations to develop a comprehensive approach to the economic development and stabilization of the region affected by the Kosovo crisis.



    DEMANDS ON YUGOSLAVIA:



    The resolution demands an immediate and verifiable end to violence and repression in Kosovo and the withdrawal of all military, police and paramilitary forces from Kosovo according to a rapid timetable. It confirms that a number of Serb military and police personnel will be allowed to return to maintain a presence at key border crossings and cultural sites, to mark and clear minefields and to maintain contacts with the military and civilian missions.



    DEMANDS ON KOSOVO ALBANIAN GROUPS:



    The resolution demands that the Kosovo Liberation Army and other armed Kosovo Albanian groups end all offensive actions immediately and comply with the requirements for demilitarization which will be spelled out by the head of the international military force. <hr></blockquote>



    As you can see, Kosovo was an entirely different situation than Iraq is now. There is no comparison.



    [ 03-13-2003: Message edited by: Fran441 ]</p>
  • Reply 17 of 22
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    [quote]Originally posted by Scott:









    Now Clinton is all against it? :confused:



    <hr></blockquote>



    Yes, you do seem to be confused. Where did you get this idea from?Maybe you should go pick up last month's atlantic monthly and see what his views really are before you post? Oh, yeah. Asking you to inform yourself would be too much. Carry on with the fantasy-land discussion.



    BTW: Go read Safe Area: Gorazde. It even has pictures, so you won't be quite so confused.
  • Reply 18 of 22
    [quote]Originally posted by pfflam:

    <strong>

    See, what I don't understand is when exactly did such a questionable list become reason enough for America to take the role of Invader

    .

    .

    .

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    He violated his cease-fire commitments. That?s reason enough. The rest is gravy.
  • Reply 19 of 22
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    Fran and pfflam,



    By no means did I mean to imply that you are dishonest or any such thing. All I was meaning to communicate was that some people act one way when their man is in office and when another is in office that may not be to their taste they act another way. To that point I stick to what I said. That is the context I frame my critical statement in. It was not as open ended as to include all who disagree with the war in Iraq. Not at all. There is room for all viewpoints to be made heard. I support the hearing of all views. I personally as is clear have a bit of a problem with those who change their tune depending on who occupies the White House. Integrity is all I keep a check on with my observations.



    To close... It is not open-ended.



    It is specific to those in the thread mentioned and those who will vouch or stick up for the slick manuvering.



    I do not mean to communicate that if one differs on the means to resolving the Iraq issue that they are dishonest.



    I hope I have made it more clear as to what I was meaning to communicate.



    With respect, Fellowship
  • Reply 20 of 22
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    [quote]Originally posted by giant:

    <strong>



    Yes, you do seem to be confused. Where did you get this idea from?Maybe you should go pick up last month's atlantic monthly and see what his views really are before you post? Oh, yeah. Asking you to inform yourself would be too much. Carry on with the fantasy-land discussion.



    BTW: Go read Safe Area: Gorazde. It even has pictures, so you won't be quite so confused.</strong><hr></blockquote>





    I must have been thinking of Carter. Thank you oh great and wise Giant. Always scrubbing the forum ready to pounce on a mistake I make and with a reading list too! What would we do without you and your 10 year old "proof" that Saddam has no bio/chem WOMD.



    Any chance we could fly to you Iraq to be a human shield? Sit on the thing marked "Baby Milk Factory"



    [ 03-14-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</p>
Sign In or Register to comment.