O'Reilly: Interest in Darfur by Clooney, others "may have something to do with color"
Bill O'Reilly questioned the motivations of George Clooney and other activists focused on the genocide in the Sudan, stating that their interest in Darfur "may have something to do with color." O'Reilly then falsely claimed, "Surely the Marsh Arabs in Iraq slaughtered by Saddam [Hussein] did not get George Clooney's attention."
During the May 1 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly questioned the motivations of actor/director George Clooney and other activists focused on the genocide in the Sudan, stating that while "the slaughter in Darfur must be stopped," their interest in Darfur "may have something to do with color." O'Reilly added, "Surely the Marsh Arabs in Iraq slaughtered by Saddam [Hussein] did not get George Clooney's attention." In fact, Saddam's slaughter of Shiites did get Clooney's "attention." In October 1999, Clooney starred in the film Three Kings (Warner Bros.), which, as the Los Angeles Times described it, depicts three U.S. soldiers who "come face-to-face with Iraqis -- who had been encouraged by the West to rise up against Hussein -- being rounded up, tortured and killed by Hussein's Republican Guard," and "must decide whether they should drop what they are doing and help the Iraqi civilians escape."
In promoting the film, as noted in an October 1, 1999, Knoxville News Sentinel film review, Clooney stated:
"This is a story" with "absolute truths. Did we rearm the Republican Guard after we beat 'em? You bet. And did the Shiites who had been told to rise up and overthrow the government, were they left there as targets? Absolutely. If it makes people open their eyes and question things, great. Then go read and learn."
O'Reilly has previously attacked Clooney; on October 31, 2001, O'Reilly suggested that the money donated to the Clooney-backed fundraising event, "America: A Tribute to Heroes," "will not go to help the grieving families" who lost loved ones in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and asserted that "the majority of these people are phonies, much more interested in their own images than solving any social problems." A week later, Clooney responded to O'Reilly's accusations:
"[Y]ou ran a story that has no basis in truth. What is not important is your attack of the performers who gave their time to raise money during the telethon for the September 11th fund. What is important is your accusation that the fund is being mishandled and misused. That sir, as you know, is nothing short of a lie.
The fund is intact and has already handed out some 36 million dollars to victims' families (fifteen thousand checks), with over $230 million more to be allocated as The United Way sorts through the complicated process of who is in the most need. To have given out all of the money only six weeks after it was raised, would truly be irresponsible. If you were a journalist you would have known that.
[...]
It took one phone call to find this information. One phone call you did not make. But hey, it's the first week of sweeps and you need to run a hard-hitting expose' of irresponsible, pampered performers and try to bait them on your show with inflammatory statements. I'm sure it must have been frustrating for you that not one person took the bait. Hell Bill, even McCarthy got a few people to show up.
Here's the problem, and why I'm forced to respond: People are coming up to me and asking if it's true the telethon was a fraud. That means the next time we try to raise money, like when the CD from the telethon comes out this month, fewer people will participate. Because of your unsubstantiated, untrue statements about the September 11 Fund, You, Mr. O'Reilly will be taking money away that from people who need it ... and all because it's the first week of sweeps.
Clooney and O'Reilly clashed again in January 2005, when Clooney organized a national telethon, "Tsunami Aid: A Concert of Hope," to benefit victims of the 2004 tsunami. O'Reilly warned Clooney, on the January 5, 2005, edition of The O'Reilly Factor that "the Factor will be watching to see if the money gets to the tsunami victims. If it does not, there will be trouble. And this time, nobody can say they weren't warned." Continuing, O'Reilly stated, "Americans must demand reasonable accountability," adding, "it is our job here to make sure you are not taken advantage of. And we will do that job. We want the telethon to be a big success, and we applaud the time and generosity of George Clooney and the other stars. But with power comes responsibility. And we expect all the telethon people to understand that."
Clooney again responded to O'Reilly's threat, reportedly arguing that "[b]ecause of it [O'Reilly's accusations and threats], fewer people will donate money to help truly traumatized victims; they'll be afraid that their money will do no good." Clooney then challenged O'Reilly to participate in the event:
I'm booking the talent for the Tsunami event ... and you, Mr. O'Reilly, are now officially invited to be a presenter ... [at this point, not one of the people I've invited to donate their time has said, 'No']. ... This way, you can personally follow up on our fund-raising. ... This is your chance to put your considerable money where your considerable mouth is. ... Show up ... help raise money ... and if we're doing something wrong, point it out.
"Either you ante up and help out and be that watchdog that you feel we clearly need ... or you simply stand on the sidelines and cast stones."
O'Reilly responded on his television show that Clooney's offer "sounds good to me, but I have to see what the format is. ...Whether I can make a pitch or not depends on how organized things are." (The O'Reilly Factor, 1/10/05). O'Reilly apparently did end up participating in the event.
From the May 1 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: The pro-amnesty people largely believe the USA has a moral obligation to accept millions of poor people as citizens. The reasoning varies. Hardcore Democrats like [Democratic National Committee chairman] Howard Dean and [Sen.] Ted Kennedy [D-MA] see future votes. [Archbishop of Los Angeles] Cardinal [Roger] Mahony sees future parishioners and wants a more compassionate approach toward the poor in general. And some activists believe it is America's fault there's poverty in Mexico and other countries.
On the peace front, most of those demonstrators believe the USA is a flawed country and so is Israel, and it's our fault there's terrorism in the world. On Darfur, the intentions are better, but there's a hard left base here as well. It may have something to do with color. Surely the Marsh Arabs in Iraq slaughtered by Saddam did not get George Clooney's attention. Even so, the slaughter in Darfur must be stopped and President Bush should take the lead in this case. So many questions; so little time. And that's a memo.
Bill: " But with power comes responsibility" That is an example of saying one thing and doing the other!
Once again, the gift that keeps on giving. The man just doesn't realize when he's met his match does he? Clooney has the power and clout - not to mention class - that an O'Reilly cannot compete with, and Clooney isn't about to retreat into the shadows. This must be the start of O'Reilly's "war on Clooney" - stay tuned, this could get interesting.
He wants them to stop talking about Dafar regardless of what the disingenuous concern who attempts at the end of his rants. He's been very critical of New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof who is one of few reporters that has kept the Dafar story alive. Kristof appeared on BO's show I understand and asked Bill to lend his celebrity and power to the cause; but Bill said he was too busy with his commitment to his show to help out. Kriostof started a fund to buy the equipment that would allow Billy Boy to do his all right wing spin show from Darfar and Kristof pledged the first $1000. The last time I read about this the pledges where about $700,000.00.
Kristoff was on Bill Maher one night and Bill Maher asked Kristoff how much would we have to raise to keep Bill O'rielly in Dafar permanently, Kristoff said that wouldn't be fair to the people there.
P.S
I do think this weird fixation on Clooney is based on pure envy.
I meant to say: regardless of the disingenous concern he attempts to add on at the end of his rants.
O'Reilly's pettiness leads me to believe you are right about his envy of Clooney.
Look at the things he complains about with Clooney. He criticized the telethon, but eventually agreed to appear on it (thus giving it his endorsement). Then O'Reilly criticizes Clooney for caring about Darfur and then O'Reilly agrees with Clooney in the next sentence: "Even so, the slaughter in Darfur must be stopped and President Bush should take the lead in this case."
Why would O'Reilly criticize Clooney for promoting an idea that he says he agrees with?
The answer is that O'Reilly is just being a petty bitch.
convinced that you are absolutely right. He uses his media time to bully those he doesn't like ... on a personal ground.
but considering how racist this moron has proven himself to be in the past, I'm forced to say I can.
I swear the only time any of these "conservative" idiots get behind something is when it involves their pocketbooks. I'd love for him to actually make a personal appearance in my city (Detroit). He starts his rhetoric, he may not make it out alive.
George Clooney: rich, talented, handsome, well-liked, successful, actually won prestigious award. Bill O'Reilly: well, he's probably rich.
Why, Bill? Why do you think that "color" has anything to do with it? Is it because, deep inside that rough skin of yours beats the rotten heart of a racist?
Jeez....how about DOING something instead of HINDERING the efforts of others? Get up off your fat duff and go deliver some food or, better yet, grab a gun and go shoot you a Janjaweed or two.
Why is it these "pundits" are never seen actually contributing to the relief efforts? Bill, do us all a favor: STFU.
he is trying to portrait Clooney as the racist who does not like Arabs and tries to tie that in with the bias of the left/liberals. However, most of the time people select one or two groups they have sympathy with (e.g., Arabs, China, Vietnam, Pakistan, Darfur). Darfur is a situation that is totally out of control for a lot of years. Nobody seems to care. Looks like the Hutu/Tutsi situation.
BUT, we know he cares about the price of gas, and a white guy missing from his cruise, and missing beautiful white girls, etc. . .
Bill knows what is really important! Color doesn't matter to him, as long as you are white or when politics/faith is involved and we can bash liberals.
It seems an interesting technique, though, to bash someone because he supports one goal and not all other goals.
...but he also shows his own innate racist tendency by bringing up the issue of color in the first place. I don't think anyone else but a racist would have done that.
There is example after example to support this. Don't forget his recent assertion that immigrant advocacy groups are engaged in attempts to "brown" America. Talk about introducing race gratuitously into a topics. I expect condemnation from Leather helmet.
Assuming O'Reilly's ridiculous suggestion is true that Clooney is somehow only interested in Darfur because of the color of people's skin...What can we assume is the reason for O'Reilly's (and the rest of Red America's) apparent disinterest in the conflict? Is it the same reason?
I would then ask you which person is more racist assuming we can presume the same about O'Reilly that he presumes about Clooney?
Is it somehow more racist of Clooney to want to stop the senseless mass murder than it is for O'Reilly to criticize Clooney for wanting to help and therefore tacitly approve of the genocide? How many trips has our humble correspondant (O'Reilly) taken to the Darfur region anyway?
Yeah, I know O'Reilly eventually agreed with Clooney, but not before he tried to criticize Clooney as a hypocrite. If O'Reilly was really for stopping the genocide in Darfur, he should cut the pettiness and not criticize people he supposedly agrees with.
You decide, America.
Hey Bill, any word yet on whether or not you'll accept that all-expenses-paid trip to Sudan?
Don't you think it would be helpful if someone other than these self-absorbed, Johnny-come-lately, oooo-look-at-me liberals like Clooney stepped up and showed the world the true face of compassionate conservatism?
Oh... never mind... you and Duhhbya already have.
Is he intentionally leaving out the important facts surrounding Clooney's film "Three Kings" in an effort to take another shot at him?
Or is he and his researchers really this sloppy?
a nasty little man, isn't he?
that he can't stoop any lower, he surprises me. Bill O'Reilly is a RACIST, plain and simple. There is no way to defend this guy.
He is so out of touch with the truth that it's terrifying.
Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times has raised more than $750,000 to pay Bill to accompany him to Darfur. So far he hasn't taken him up on the offer.
It was GHWB who stirred up the "Marsh Arabs" in Iraq with promises to help after they rose against Saddam. I don't recall Bill ever mentioning his anger when we betrayed them under Bush Sr. Administration.
How small a man is O'Reilly. He sits and pontificates each night spreading untruths and hatred. Why? Hatred is a response to something, it's not something that comes natural to people. What is Bill's White Whale?
"It was GHWB who stirred up the "Marsh Arabs" in Iraq with promises to help after they rose against Saddam. I don't recall Bill ever mentioning his anger when we betrayed them under Bush Sr. Administration."
But even without that, Saddam was a mass murderer. However, many people have raised attention for their cause. Still, you are right: Bush senior betrayed them by promising support in their uprising and he just wasn't there.
As long as the whale is white, Bill doesn't have a problem with it.
O'Reilly believes that there is no such thing as someone feeling compassion for people who suffer in general and if people have compassion and act on it, it's probably because they are racist against other groups that they are not helping today.
Don't try to figure out wing nut logic it will hurt too much. Essentially they don't give a F about things, people, nothing that doesn't have a direct impact on them and it pisses them off that others do.
thats why they spin it so easely into any direction that fits the needs of today. Tomorrow they give just another spin to the same, or similar, info.
The most succinct way that I can put it is that BOR is simply a colossal A-hole. Selfish, self-centered, and if not too stupid to believe his own rhetoric, also an A-1 hypocrite.
I think O'Reilly needs to get a grip. He never has anything constructive, logical or meaningful to say. He makes swipes at targets that get a lot of attention. So Mr. judgemental O'Reilly, what proactive actions are you doing to help the situation in Darfur? I expectt nothing, as it is much easier to sit on your high horse an spew out garbage!
Everything the right wing media conspiracy does is to draw attention away from King George and his band of hypocrites. They will smear anyone, lie about anything, even completely fabricate stories, anything that will deflect criticism away from Bush and his criminal gang.
Remember now, this right wing media bias extends well beyond Fox. It is alive and well in just about every national news network in one way or another.
So when one of them (Fox is usually the 'loss leader' in this regard, eg, the loss of the truth), others follow suit, lockstep with the wishes of this criminal administration.
It's just shameful.
"Surely the Marsh Arabs in Iraq slaughtered by Saddam did not get George Clooney's attention. Even so, the slaughter in Darfur must be stopped and President Bush should take the lead in this case."
Does anyone at Fox News research ANYTHING? This is a no-brainer fact to look up. Clooney STARRED in a movie in which the slaughter of the Marsh Arabs was prominently featured. How does this slip through their fact checkers? Thus my point is made: Fox has none. Sure, the title "fact checker" exists but not the actual "job" as in REAL fact checking. Spinning #43's lies doesn't count as fact checking. Servicing an account is more like it.
I am guilty of discrimination on the basis of skin color. I have a thing against blotchy, red-faced, ignorant screamers. So sue me.
Clooney going to Darfur didn't become a race issue until good ol' Billy said so. And besides, what exactly makes Clooney's philanthropy an issue of color, because he visited Africa? That makes every visit to Africa by a white person an issue of color? Angelina Jolie is going to give birth to her child in Africa because there are black people there? This doesn't make any sense. Billy is really digging deep here. I think he dug so deep, he found the black, devilish pit that he calls his own beating heart.
IGNORING the tragedy in Darfur may have something to do with color!