Archive for the ‘Joy Behar’ Category

Rosie’s Blog’s Damning Evidence.

May 27, 2007

Much of the furore surrounding the Rosie O’Donnell and Elisabeth Hasselbeck verbal entanglement centred on the notion that O’Donnell had described the US troops as terrorists. A charge that O’Donnell denies and one on which she forced Hasselbeck to defend her (eventually) during the now infamous row.

It is ironic that O’Donnell’s own blogsite contains the following quotation – a transcript of a discussion in which the ‘terrorist’ description pops up…

 “Dated: 2007-05-23
Did Rosie Call Our Troops Terrorists?

The [sic] is directly from the transcripts of The View for May 17th:

O’DONNELL: …… I just want to say something. 655,000 Iraqi civilians are dead. Who are the terrorists?
HASSELBECK: Who are the terrorists?
O’DONNELL: 655,000 Iraqis — I’m saying you have to look, we invaded –
HASSELBECK: Wait, who are you calling terrorists now? Americans?
O’DONNELL: I’m saying if you were in Iraq, and the other country, the United States, the richest in the world, invaded your country and killed 655,000 of your citizens, what would you call us?
HASSELBECK: Are we killing their citizens or are their people also killing their citizens?  
O’DONNELL: We’re invading a sovereign nation, occupying a country against the U.N.”

Notice, O’Donnell refuses to answer Hasselbeck’s questions regarding clarifying her position on the identity of the terrorists in her opinion. It is clear from her initial statement (my bold) that she is implying that US troops are the terrorists. She is clever enough not to actually put those words in the same sentence but her implication is crystal clear. Hasselbeck gave her ample opportunity to clarify her postion – O’Donnell refused.

It is typical of O’Donnell that she tosses in the 650,000 figure for the amount of Iraqis killed and she even has a section for this stat on her blogsite. I say typical, because of course the number 650,000 is not based on any facts. It is fictitious. There is no proof. This does not deter O’Donnell from using it as if it were true to back up her argument.

It is equally bizarre that she would state that the US was acting against the UN while conveniently ignoring the fact that Hussein/Iraq had been acting in violation of the UN for over a decade. I hardly think the current massacres occuring in Iraq as a result of the fighting between rival Muslim groups is in accordance with the UN charter either – although the lack of action from the UN regarding Darfur might suggest otherwise.

The fact that O’Donnell’s own blog contained the incriminating evidence – and yet, O’Donnell’s people viewing the transcript through Rosie-tinted spectacles do not see it. This might explain why they don’t ‘get’ 9/11 or the War on Terror.

Advertisements

O’Donnell – Defending the Indefensible

May 26, 2007

Rosie O’Donnell is leaving The View ahead of her scheduled departure time following her spat with Elisabeth Hasselbeck. On the back of her regular efforts to discredit the US troops, denigrate the President, and propogate unsubstantiated falsehoods (9/11 conspiracy theories), this departure is long overdue.

While free speech and questioning of authority are to be encouraged in a democratic society, abuse of a public position to spread unproven, extremist theories and to undermine the country at a time of war should not be tolerated.

It is interesting that this blog has received a number of comments containing extreme vitriol as a result of its criticism of O’Donnell and yet these same people are quite happy to hear her compare the US forces to terrorists and President Bush to war criminals.

O’Donnell’s right to free speech is undeniable – she does not have the right to abuse the troops and spread groundless, extremist conspiracy theories on national television without being questioned.

Rosie O’Donnell AWOL? MIA?

May 25, 2007

Rosie O’Donnell, having criticized Elisabeth Hasselbeck as “cowardly” on Wednesday 23rd May on The View for not kowtowing to her (Rosie’s) bullying efforts to defend her outrageous statements against the troops in Iraq, did not turn up to next show.

Why? One can only imagine what must be going through the delusional O’Donnell’s mind. Right now, it’s probably full of conspiracy theories about how Bush orchestrated her firing from The View because her ranting was attracting too much attention and opening the eyes of a misled nation. If this is the case, she should book herself into a clinic and get the help she clearly needs.

In reality, she did not show because she was feeling sorry for herself. Bullies hate it when their victims strike back – even more so, when the victim stands up to the bully in public. Hasselbeck found her spine at last and stood (sat, to be precise)  toe-to-toe with O’Donnell. Surprisingly, the mainstream media has given the spat a great deal of coverage. I say “surprisingly” because the outcome of the coverage has been greater sympathy and respect for Hasselbeck and her opinions on the war and the troops.

Maybe O’Donnell went missing owing to the fact that she realizes the American public is growing tired of her constant anti-American troop-bashing routine. She may also recognize the fact that Hasselbeck came across as strong and rational (somewhat unusually for her), while she was seen as irrational, obnoxious and disrespectful.

Please come back today, Rosie. It would be nice to see Hasselbeck finish you off. Having said that, a reappearance by O’Donnell might signal a made-for-TV ‘let’s kiss and make up’ moment. Oh dear.

Rosie O’Donnell Spits Out Pacifier

May 24, 2007

On The View, Rosie O’Donnell took up her usual position in the gutter and proceeded to attack Elisabeth Hasselbeck in a manner reminiscent of the schoolyard bully. The similarity with those dastardly, yet cowardly, bullies continued when she whined and seemed on the verge of tears when Hasselbeck initially refused to state that she believed O’Donnell did not think US troops were terrorists.

It was only after constant badgering and shouting that Hasselbeck eventually agreed that O’Donnell did not equate the actions of the US troops with those of the Islamic extremists. It was less a case of Hasselbeck saying what she believed, and more one of her repeating what O’Donnell the bully wanted to hear in order to get her to pipe down.

Despite caving in, Hasselbeck put up a good show and hopefully will get stronger as O’Donnell’s time draws to a close.

O’Donnell has labelled President Bush as a war criminal, has made outrageous claims that 9/11 was a conspiracy, and has consistently attacked the Coalition forces in Iraq (while, at the same time, claiming to support the troops). It is little wonder many view her as anti-American, anti-democratic and consequently in favour of a US defeat in the War on Terror.

As Hasselbeck suggested, if O’Donnell does not want to be seen in this light, she needs to stop spouting her unpatriotic, anti-freedom diatribes on an almost daily basis.

Equating Bush’s actions in bringing freedom from oppression to Afghanistan and Iraq, in defending the values of freedom “here and over there”, and in supporting the efforts of peoples like the Kurds in Iraq to strive for democracy, to the actions of the extremists and dictators like Hussein is unforgivable. O’Donnell criticizes Bush for going to war in Iraq against the wishes of the UN but says nothing about the fact that Hussein had blatently ignored not only the UN resolutions over a period of more than ten years but also had flouted basic human rights for many in his country (and Kuwait during the invasion).

O’Donnell deserves no sympathy. It is because the US has a President like Bush who is prepared to fight for liberty and to protect what America stands for that O’Donnell can freely express her bigoted and misleading opinions and lead the lifestyle she chooses. The extremists, that she feels we should not be fighting, would not allow her a fraction of the freedom she enjoys in the West nor would they allow her to live for long.

How miopic of O’Donnell not to see the long-term cosequences of failure! Oh well, at least there are only three weeks to go before she loses her current outlet for her tirades. One can only hope the shouting subsides and the pacifer remains firmly in her mouth over that time. Somehow, I doubt it.

See also Rosie’s War Against America

Rosie O’Donnell’s Jaded and Faded

May 3, 2007

At last, Rosie O’Donnell will be leaving The View. Her treasonous, anti-American (pro-terror?) tirades were becoming more tiresome and more offensive by the day. The mainstream media stood up as one to condemn Don Imus for his offensive (and yet, comedic comments), but have said little against O’Donnell despite the numerous occasions when she has accused the President of America of lying, torturing and murdering. Free speech is one thing, but hateful propaganda against one’s own President and country at a time of war is unforgivable.

Unfortunately, her departure is not immediate, and so one will have to tolerate her rantings for two more months. Predictably, her pronouncements are seeming to be more delusional and wild with every passing show. This week she aggressively attacked the rather feeble Elisabeth Hasselbeck, barely allowing her to speak on the subject of Iraq.

One can only hope that Joy Behar will be following closely on O’Donnell’s heels.

Rosie’s War Against America

March 26, 2007

Once again, Rosie O’Donnell took up the fight against the United States of America and its allies today on The View.

Referring to the capture of 15 British sailors, she urged viewers to “google Gulf of Tonkin” on several occasions during the show. Her implication was that the current Iran incident would be used as a pretext for war. Clearly, Rosie is against the US and its allies on any issue. There can be no defence for Iran capturing those British sailors. It is clearly an aggressive act designed to demonstrate to the world that it does not care for international law – nicely timed with the UN’s vain attempt to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions with the usual ineffective sanctions. This latest incident is just one of many that would certainly justify further action against Iran.

Rosie showed no concern for the well-being of the British sailors, and yet, on the same show, she proceeded to lament how the media gives little coverage to the soldiers killed in Iraq. These views seem to be contradictory – something that is typical of the left these days.

It would be nice if Rosie were to decry the horrors being committed by the extremists in Iraq in the name of Islam – that would be expecting too much. She gets too much of a kick from denigrating the brave men and women of America and the attempts by countries like the US and the UK to safeguard our way of life and to stand up to terror. The lack of media coverage regarding what these extremist groups (and the Iranian leadership) want to do to affect our lives is something that should be protested.

By the way, when one googles the Gulf of Tonkin incident, one is taken to a myriad of conspiracy sites, including Rosie’s own blog. Interestingly, Rosie’s site includes many references to 9/11 conspiracies and one of ther latest blogs refers to the “blowing up” of Building 7. Rosie lives in a world of conspiratorial propaganda whose only purpose seems to be to undermine the American government (and its allies). Worryingly, but unsurprisingly, her views go unchallenged on The View. It is bizarre that a person with her lifestyle chooses to support regimes and other groups (ie the enemies of USA) that are extremely intolerant of such a life.

 While Rosie is happy to criticize the efforts of the USA in Vietnam, she, like many of her conspiracy-fanatics, are unwilling to recognize the impact the American action had. By responding with such resolve for much of the Vietnam war, the US effectively dissuaded the Communists from trying more audacious takeovers in other countries around the world. Likewise the military successes in Afghanistan and in Iraq (as long as the will remains strong) encourage the oppressed and give freedom a chance in a region so long bereft of hope.

One question remains. Should Iran get a nuclear weapon, whose side will Rosie be on? No doubt, the US will continue to shoulder the blame in her eyes. The US will also continue to protect her.