Oprah turned against the war

[maximusveritas]

I've noticed a few misleading posts here that accuse Oprah of supporting the Iraq War. While it's true that she initially believed the administration's lies, she quickly realized the error of her ways and became an opponent of the war before it began, doing more to raise questions about it than any other member of the mainstream media.

Most of the misleading posts reference Oprah's October 2002 show where she had Kenneth Pollack on the show to spread his propaganda about the threat Iraq posed to this country. There is video of Oprah disagreeing with an audience member who expressed skepticism about Pollack's claims. That is all true.

What these posts leave out is what happened after that show.

Starting in November 2002, Oprah began to run a series of shows questioning our going to war with Iraq.
She was praised by Michael Moore for being the only person to show the now-infamous video of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam at a time when the rest of the media was showing video of Saddam shaking hands with Chirac, a war opponent.

On February 6, 2003, the day after Colin Powell’s speech to the United Nations, she ran a show called "The World Speaks Out On Iraq". That show was pre-empted halfway through by a rushed Bush press conference to summarize what Powell said the day before. The show up to that point had been "decidedly anti-war and highlighted not only worldwide unanimity in opposition to the war but presented many of the heretofore unheard voices of ordinary people speaking forcefully against Bush’s motives."

A month later, on March 6, 2003, Oprah ran a show with anti-war Middle East expert Fawaz Gerges as her guest. Dan Rather also appeared to talk about his interview with Saddam and ask "Is it worth the price to send our best in there to die, be wounded and put our national treasure on the line?"

With her next show, Oprah again featured Gerge in questioning the war in Iraq that would be launched in the next few days and played excerpts of Michael Moore's movie. This again earned the praise of Moore, but the scorn of conservatives like Ben Shapiro, who lashed out: "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." As Shapiro noted, "This is 180 degrees from October 2002, when Oprah appeared to push regime change in Iraq."

This Wikipedia article goes into the details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oprah's_Anti-war_series

Personally, I'm not sure why Oprah's beliefs should even matter, but if people are going to unfairly attack her, then we need to hear the truth.

[eleny]

1. Epiphanies are always appreciated

:thumbsup:

[acmavm]

2. Oprah's 'she was for it before she was against it' is acceptable. But not

Kerry's or anyone else's?

Whatever. I never understood the Oprah phenomenon anyway.

[ellacott]

3. Most people were for it before they were against it. Kerry didn't get slammed for that

He got slammed for the spending bills.

[acmavm]

4. Oh bullshit. And they're still slamming Edwards and Hillary for that shit.

Although I do believe Hils is still more than willing to bomb the shit out of Iran. And I don't believe for a minute she regrets her IWR vote.

[ellacott]

8. Oh Bullshit to you. PAY ATTENTION!!!

wtf is wrong with some of you.

My response was in regards to Kerry's statement that he was for it before he was against it. What that was in reference to was the $87 billion dollars. He voted for it before he voted against it.

[acmavm]

12. You pay attention. What makes you think that I'm only referring to you?

Do you really think you're that important? Do you not think that phrase hasn't been used a thousand times on this board? Or do you think your an international trend setter or something?

Go take your meds and chill.

[ellacott]

13. You responded to my post

Say what you want now. Don't need meds darling.

[acmavm]

15. That's what they all say.

[ellacott]

16. yep, yep

believe what you need to believe.

[karynnj]

28. Yes he did - even though he was against the war before it started

and was routinely labeled - even on liberal boards in early 2003 as "anti-war". Though from the reaction to Clinton, who has a far weaker case of having been against the war, I can see why he didn't do what I had always thought would have been smart - tried to get people to focus on March 2003 rather than October 2002.

Also there was only one spending bill - he voted for a version where it was paid for and had oversignt and against the enacted Republican version that lacked both.

[maximusveritas]

5. Their change came 2 years later, after public opinion had shifted to that side

Oprah changed her mind and questioned the war when it was not popular to do so.

In any case, the point here is not to compare them. She's not running against them. The point is to provide the rest of the story and set the record straight.

[acmavm]

6. No. The point is to show the hypocrisy.

[Cha]

11. Sounds like you

wouldn't know "hypocricy" if it slapped ya upside the 'ead..all you do is throw out invectives keeping you too busy to be concerned with facts.

[acmavm]

14. Oh I know hypocrisy. I see the bullshit posts everyday that condemn

people who were for the war at first and them changed their minds later. They're condemned for it constantly and consistently.

But then point out that it IS acceptable for some as long as it's one of their idols, and that's a different story.

Didn't anyone ever tell you that whining, even in print, is not attractive nor does it showcase one's intellect?

Well, if not please take note.

[Cha]

21. You're the whiner and

and it's getting ugly.

[sandnsea]

9. She doesn't have access to the NIE or intelligence

or the confidence of people who had access to even more secret intelligence. There is no way you can compare her to US Senators or Congressman.

[madmom]

18. that was the first thing I thought when I read this, but was thinking more about

Hillary and Edwards.

[superkia]

24. Be careful, the Oprah phenomenon sucked you into this post.

[acmavm]

26. No, the double standard sucked me into the post. Oprah was just the

celebrity getting the pass.

[flpoljunkie]

7. Thank you for this. Apparently Oprah came around rather quickly, compared to some of our Dems.

[Cha]

10. Facts! Maxim! Some people

on here just won't accept them cause they'd rather bitch and whine..it feels comfy to them.

[DeanDem10]

17. The problem is

That at the point of the Gerges appearance, the damage was already done. And not everyone sees every show. But viewers did see Judith Miller, the show in which she chided the viewer-war opponent, Condi Rice (this was later).

Oprah's biggest problem is that she seems to go with whomever (especially any perceived expert) is on at the time. She has some really fixed opinions about certain things, but where she hasn't done her homework, she is too suggestible. And if one is going to take a stance before millions of people, about something so serious, she shouldn't be so willing to defer.

She does a lot of good, more than most people, but she has also done some harm, much as she'd be disinclined to admit it.

[maximusveritas]

20. Fair points

Especially this one: "She has some really fixed opinions about certain things, but where she hasn't done her homework, she is too suggestible."
This is true about many people and it showed on something like Iraq where you had the "experts" saying one thing and anyone who disagreed being called crazy or worse.

I don't think her change of mind absolves her, no matter how quickly it came about. That original show probably did do damgage. I do get the feeling that this war has really awakened Oprah to what's going on in the world.

[DeanDem10]

25. Here's the thing...

If someone like me could handily rebut every single allegation of BUSCHCO, using standard tools (internet and buried articles in the so-called MSM), then Oprah could have. She has a staff. It also takes for people to remember contrary evidence from one week or month to the next. Our nation and our very lives depend on it. The Bush-Daddy model of citizenship (let Geroge --or anyone--decide what's good for us) is bad for our collective health.

Many Americans may not like to hear this, but all who blindly fell into the rote, mindless call for regime change need to accept some responsibility. It was possible to know better. There was enough information in the US press, on respectable websites, and foreign press to know better than most did that we were heading in a terrible direction. But the mitigating fact is that most Americans didn't have staffs to help them sort through the data. So their culpability isn't on the level of say those with staffs.

Weapons inspectors were out there warning us. Not just El Baradei, but many of them. Within days of Colin Powell's presentation, there was absolute refutation (destroyed his case) of every single point. We knew before the war that the Niger documents were not reliable.

There were weapons inspectors reports on the UN website. Also available well before the war was the 2000 Project for a New American Century paper on the plan for America's "Defenses." It was really a blueprint for regime change and redrawing the map of the Middle East. Also available was the 1996 paper by Richard Pearle outlining such a bravado-laced and hegemonic venture.

It was also clear very early on that 9-11 was committed by mostly Saudis. Despite Bush's and Cheney's frequent blurring of Iraq with 9-11 anyone who read would have known better. Trouble is most Americans let their fear do the talking and walking. We have an obligation to ourselves our fellow citizens and even the world to let level heads prevail. We cannot justify wantonly searching for someone, anyone to pay, for that terrible day--unless it is the right people. The right (ie responsible people) should pay and not hapless, or even unexemplary nations.

It doesn't matter if some "thinkers" think regime change would be nice. It's wrong to destroy a country that wasn't a threat to us, no matter what supposed good (mythical or otherwise) could come of it.

Though we seem to have complicity in more than a couple regime changes, from a moral perspective, we don't get to decide these things. Our nation's leaders need to get our own house in order and stop playing "Father Knows Best" with everyone else.

But of all the responsibility and there is a lot to go around, after the Bush administration itself, I blame media persons and Congress the most. They let us down, each and every one.

[maximusveritas]

29. I agree

Though I do also think there's a difference between members of the news media and members of the entertainment media. Oprah's show has occasionally blurred the line between the two, but it's still an entertainment show for the most part. She still has a much greater responsibility than the average guy on the street, but less than someone on CNN or MSNBC.

[DeanDem10]

31. And I agree with you...

Their certainly are degrees of responsibility, as you suggest.

[Cha]

23. Right and none of

us are perfect..some are just less perfect than others. I hope she has learned an invaluble lesson about what she should be backing at any particular point in history.

[Bitwit1234]

19. Well now...Oprah is forgiven because she believed bush's lies

and then realized that he WAS lying...but the Obama supporters mess their shorts over and over every day trying to hook Hillary up forever to the fact that congress believed the president was telling the truth about WMD until they found out they were lies.

Oh I see. If you support Obama, you can say bush deceived you, but if you don't support Obama you can't...good show.

[DrFunkenstein]

22. Didn't Oprah Read The National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq?

That was pretty ridiculous to lend your support to the war without even bothering to read such a crucial document.

[CyberPieHole]

27. Probably not...

but I'm sure she had a go-fer read it for her. I call bullshit on Oprah and her ilk.

[blm]

30. Bill Clinton advised Dems to support Bush on Iraq - Oprah and many other Dems should never

have believed him. TeamClinton NEEDED Bush to stay in office past 2004 and supported him CONSISTENTLY on the biggest issues of that election.