Stars Feel Unfairly Labeled
Vol: 17 Issue: 24 Monday, February 24, 2003
George Clooney gave an interview in which he complained it was unfair that Americans opposed to war are being branded unpatriotic. Does he have a point? Or is it another smokescreen?
Clooney, who in interviews with European newspapers has accused Bush of war-mongering over Iraq, is on a growing list of Hollywood celebrities to speak out against war. Others include Sean Penn, Ed Harris, Dustin Hoffman, Madonna and director Spike Lee.
“America’s policies frustrate me,” Clooney said in a German television program. “I think a war against Iraq is as unavoidable as it senseless. I think it’s coming. But I also think the real danger is going to be what happens after it.”
Most of Hollyweird has come out in support of Saddam Hussein, as has a goodly part of the left fringe of the Democratic party, like the Right Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Not to mention former presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
When criticized for publicly opposing their own nation’s policies overseas, all immediately drape themselves in the Constitution and ask in hurt tones, “whatever happened to free speech?”
In previous articles and briefings, I’ve pointed out that America’s image abroad is as schizophrenic as it is domestically. Most countries deny being anti-American, but enthusiastically admit to being anti-Bush.
Since Bush is America’s leader, it’s a distinction without a difference. What is more important is what it means to America.
All of America — not just the Jimmy Carters and Jesse Jacksons who build castles in the air, or the George Clooneys and Sean Penns eager to rent rooms in them — but ALL of us.
This morning’s Washington Post reported that “many people in the world increasingly think President Bush is a greater threat to world peace than Iraqi President Saddam Hussein”.
Wonder why they think that?
” “It is rather astonishing,” said a senior U.S. official who has access to the reports. “There is an absence of any recognition that Hussein is the problem.” One ambassador, who represents the United States in an allied nation, bluntly cabled that in that country, Bush has become the enemy.”
The Post tries to explain why the world claims to love America but hate George Bush in geopolitical terms, but the explanation is an exercise in circular logic.
“Analysts and U.S. officials suggest a number of reasons the president has become the subject of such vitriol overseas. Some of it stems from personality: Bush’s blunt manner and frequent references to religion appear especially grating to European ears, these analysts and officials say. But much of it is rooted in substantive questions about the role of U.S. power in the world and whether Bush is properly using it in his battle with Hussein.”
That paragraph contains more baloney than a New York deli. Europeans know of George Bush what they are told of George Bush. They don’t live in America.
Most Europeans know about as much about George Bush as you do about Jacques Chirac.
And if you’ve been watching American news, you probably don’t like him much. I don’t either. But millions of Frenchmen do. They must know something we don’t.
So now we return to George Clooney, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, Jesse Jackson, etc., etc., ad nauseum, and their flag-draped indignation at being labeled ‘unpatriotic’ for supporting Iraq’s best interests or the UN’s instead of what the Commander in Chief says is America’s best interests.
Clooney can’t find an audience for his views at home, so he takes them to Germany. The Germans watch Clooney’s movies, figure he lives in America and must know something about George Bush. So Clooney tells them what he thinks, and the Germans come away not liking George Bush very much.
It sounds overly simplistic, until you remember how you feel about Jacques Chirac or Gerhardt Schroeder.
(And why you feel that way, since you couldn’t pick them out of a line-up six months ago).
George Bush’s universal unpopularity didn’t begin with Iraq. It began with the “Not my president” crybabies during Election 2000.
The networks were profoundly anti-Bush in their coverage, as was CNN. The controversy dominated the overseas news. So did the endless recounts, lawsuits, and the anti-Bush campaign that followed.
That would have been a significant wall for any president to have to hurdle, had the “not my president” campaign died after the election ended.
The networks (with the notable exceptions of ABC and CNN) eventually came to an uneasy peace with the Bush administration, but Hollyweird and the Clinton left wing has kept up the campaign of innuendo and division — the kinds of stuff that make news overseas.
And now, at the time when we need allies the most, we can’t find any. Not because our allies disagree with us. Not really. Canada doesn’t really hate Americans. And they don’t really like Saddam Hussein. They just don’t like George Bush more.
The same can be said for the rest of our reluctant ‘allies’ marching in the streets to protest a war against Iraq that the Iraqi people themselves say is necessary.
The division among the Allies has made war more likely, not less, since that division has given Saddam hope he might be able to exploit it to achieve his military objectives.
The division at home has made war more likely, not less, for the same reasons.
Saddam remembers how Vietnam ended.
This is where we apply the unspun logic. Is war in America’s interests? No. Has the disunity made war more likely, or less?
Clearly, Saddam’s ‘cooperation’ has increased in direct proportion to the military forces massing along his borders. What does that suggest to you?
Now we add the known facts. When Bill Clinton bombed the socks off Saddam in 1998, nobody said boo. Same thing when Clinton ignored the UN and used NATO to bomb Milosevic’s Serbia. Where were the protests?
Same Saddam, same UN, same NATO, same America. Carter, Clooney, Baldwin, Jackson, Clinton; they’re the same. The only thing that has changed is the president.
So, when you add everything up, what is the motive behind the antiwar liberal left’s agenda? They don’t like George Bush. More than they don’t like Saddam.
How unfair is the label ‘unpatriotic’?
If he isn’t their president, then who is?
“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ORDAINED OF God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God . . ” Romans 13:1-2)
“Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.” (1 Peter 2:18)
“Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work” (Titus 3:1)