The television happened to be turned on this morning. It was sitting on the show The View. As I poured myself a glass grenadine and blueberry juice, Rosie O'Donnell was the one who managed to grab my attention for a millisecond. The panel of "experts" were talking about the Iraq War. Now, given her opinions about politics, I just had to listen lest I miss her latest thoughts.
I was not disappointed. In her attempt to low ball America's role in Iraq she claimed that ONLY the United Kingdom supported the U.S. This was a flat out misuse of facts.
We all want to get our point across. The war in Iraq is an unpopular one among some. Naturally, we stake our positions and one way to do this (outside the realm of the abstract) is to use facts. However, what intellectual use is it to anybody if we are dishonest about how we debate? Ms. O'Donnell is most definitely entitled to her opinion. She is not entitled to ignoring facts or evidence. Nor is she in a position to interpret how and why nations choose to support and not support wars.
There were over 40 countries (including Japan, South Korea, El Salvador, Holland, Australia, Georgia, Lithuania, Philippines to name a few) in various capacities that supported the war. Not all committed troops but America did attempt to build a coalition. It wasn't as unanimous as the First Gulf War, however, it did secure support.
Look at it this way. If one supports her statement, it disregards and disrespects all casualties the 17 countries suffered in Iraq. Consider that Poland (17), Italy (33), Bulgaria (13), Denmark (6), Spain (11), Ukraine (18) among others (approximately 161 in total not including the U.S. and UK) all lost soldiers. Over 120 lives have been lost (again not including UK and U.S. deaths). Does she care about the families of the fallen soldiers from other countries?
It's not enough to say that America should not have gone in the first place. What's done is done.
It was a blatant and unfortunate omission on Ms. O'Donnell's part.
Figures from icasualties.org
Commentator,
ReplyDeleteWhat Ms. O'Donnell represents, I think, is the fascination with wealth so very common on this planet: we care what some people have to say solely because they are rich. No one would care what Rosie thinks if she was poor; her wealth validates something about her, or so it goes: she MUST have something going for her to have been so successful.
What, pray tell, does Rosie O'Donnell actually do for a living? What does she really contribute other than to perpetuate a myth that chubby, mouthy girls can remain thoroughly brattish and make all their dreams -- of wealth and fame -- come true? Seriously: what is Rosie's claim to success other than what I have just said here? She's just an OK actress, and that's being generous. She's surely not a comic; all kinds of people are funny and are not comics, just like there are all kinds of people who are comics that are not funny.
Anyhow, just rambling on, really.
Peace.
BG
BG, you hit the nail spot on. The link between fame and accomplishment is thin indeed these days. Ashlee Simpson? Paris Hilton? Nicole Ritchie? Hilary? To name a few obvious examples. Dowd can string a few words together but really what does she offer to merit such a platform at the NYT? I can honestly say I have never learnt anything from her columns - And I have an open mind. Yet, there she is writing for one of the world's most influential papers. And so on...
ReplyDelete