Oprah: Daytime Talk’s Jihadi Sister

May 25, 2005
By Debbie Schlussel

My rebuttal in bold italics.

Ann Coulter says Katie Couric is “the affable Ava Braun” of daytime TV.

Remember when people like Ann Coulter were outraged by commercials that compared Bush to Hitler? In the very first sentence, you provide a very hypocritical quote. Couric is Hitler’s girlfriend. Yes, that is responsible journalism. Way to have me hooked, Debbie.

But Couric’s got nothing on Oprah Winfrey.

So she’s worse than Hitler’s girlfriend? Man, she must eat babies or something.

Oprah is the affable Joseph Goebbels of daytime talk . . . of chick magazines . . . of Oprah seminars—and every other medium in which the self-anointed high priestess of the religion of Oprah has her hands.

Ah, one Nazi reference isn’t enough, is it Debbie? Wouldn’t Coutler be proud of Oprah’s business success though? Isn’t this capitalism at its best? If you are against the Oprah empire, shall I assume you are against News Corp., G.E., Disney, and Viacom as well? Where is your outrage there? Or is it harder for your little mind to grasp a corporate conglomerate? Sure, it’s easier to demonize one black woman.

Through all of these, Oprah preaches “how to be your best self” and “live your best life.” Unfortunately, a predilection for radical Islam and excusing terrorists is a prominent element of Oprah’s “best self.”

What does one have to do with the other? As you say, Oprah is a “religion” with many different areas. Don’t you think it’s unfair to tie in her beliefs with living your best life and her beliefs regarding Islam? Living your best life is about personal reflection and self confidence. The issue of Islam is more political and religious. The topics are not related.

Cheating husbands don’t get off as easy as Islamic terrorists, murderers, and torturers in Winfrey’s world.

Show me the quote where she says that terrorists should be punished less severely than cheating husbands. Please.

Take “O” Magazine, Oprah’s monthly print version of self-conceit. Like every other month, the cover of the June issue of “O” features Oprah—for the gazillionth time. Unfortunately, also for the gazillionth time, the inside of the glossy mag features Oprah’s unique brand of understanding and empathy for terrorists and radical Islam.

I’m going to let you in on a little secret. The “O” on the front of the magazine stands for Oprah. She’s built up a name and audience for herself. The target audience of this magazine is people who have watched Oprah and respect her opinions. Who else would you want on the cover of such a magazine? So far, your anger seems to stem from a jealousy that she has a lot of areas of media that she’s conquering. “self-conceit”. Define that for me. What is the proper level of exposure a person is allowed in your world? George Bush gets a lot of coverage too. Is he conceited? Obviously, he has a more important job (when he’s not on vacation), but just because someone exists in the public limelight does not necessarily mean she’s conceited. You have a website with your name on the top. Maybe the pages aren’t as “glossy” as Oprah’s website, but it’s still attempting to get your voice out there.

Last month, Oprah’s “O” asked readers to understand “The Heart of a Destroyer,” Mohammed Atta. You remember him—the Al-Qaeda ringleader of the 9/11 hijackers who murdered 3,000 Americans.

There are two nouns in that title. I give you credit for spotting the first one, but did you see the second? I realize it’s three syllables, but sound it out. De-story-er. That’s a bad thing. Look it up.

But that’s not exactly the way “O”’s “reading room” wants you to remember him.

Yeah, because the word “destroyer” has nothing to do with 9/11 or the 3,000 deaths.

Beneath a picture of young Mohammed and his smiling sister on the Egyptian beach, “O” exhorts you to read a book that “sets out to understand the hearts and minds of the men behind the photos” of the 9/11 hijackers, a group of “lonely, exiled young men.”

Wouldn’t it be beneficial to the safety of our country to understand the motives of the terrorists? Perhaps if we better understood where they were coming from, we’d be able to prevent them from terrorizing (or destroying). What’s a better national policy? Hunting down terrorists after they do something, or creating an environment where they don’t grow up to be terrorists in the first place?

But the fatherless and motherless children who lost their parents to Atta—hey aren’t lonely, are they?

Why are the two things mutually exclusive? If I say that person A is lonely, that does not mean that person B isn’t lonely. This is probably the most basic of all “logical” theories. How can you not realize this? I suppose you would expect every sentence to expand to include every other possible outcome. “a group of lonely, exiled young men. And speaking of lonely people, here is a list of every lonely person who has ever existed. Also, please see appendix C for a list of all young people currently on planet earth. We wouldn’t want Debbie to think that, by calling the terrorists young, that we were somehow implying that there aren’t other young people out there.”

The book, “O” tells us, “is a simultaneously passionate, compassionate, and dispassionate book that [doesn’t] indict Islam.” Just what we need—the CEO of the Oprah Book Club urging America’s women to have compassion for Mohammed Atta. On the next Oprah, “Stupid Talk Show Hosts and the Terrorists Who Love Them.” (Or is that, “Brave Terrorists and the Stupid Talk Show Hosts Who Love Them”?)

First, just because a book is compassionate (while also being dispassionate) doesn’t mean that it’s urging the reader to have compassion. I imagine you live in a world where people are just born good or evil, and that their motives are very simple. Unfortunately, I live in the real world where social interactions are complex and help shape the lives of people who are exposed to them. I’m not saying “let’s let him off the hook, b/c he had a bad childhood.” Rather, I’d like to see the bigger picture of what made him a terrorist, but not his neighbor. Again, learning about the terrorists would aid in our security. But, I imagine you live in a world where saying “the devil made me do it” is still a viable defense.

Second, let’s take a look at the word “Brave”. The official definition of Brave is possessing or displaying courage. Courage is defined as: The state or quality of mind or spirit that enables one to face danger, fear, or vicissitudes with self-possession, confidence, and resolution; bravery. This man fearlessly faced danger with confidence. Is there any denying that? He gave up his life for something he believed in. He KNEW he was going to die. We say our soldiers are “brave” for going to war, but at least they have the chance of living. He knew he was going to die, and did it anyway. Regardless of whether or not you believe in his motives, I don’t understand how you can say that that isn’t brave. Please explain it to me.

I think Stedman’s starting to get jealous.

If Oprah was a man, would you mention his girlfriend in this retort? Or do you define a woman’s self worth by the man she’s with? This is a very sexist comment, but I’m no surprised since it comes from a very simplistic and prejudiced person.

To add insult to injury, the latest issue, “O”'s June 2005 edition, demands that we understand the pain and turmoil of Yusra Abdu, a teen-age Palestinian would-be homicide bomber, fiancée of Hani Akad, leader of Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine terrorist group. Akad’s group, funded by Libya (one of “O” Mag’s “Five Places to See in Your Lifetime”), murdered 27 children and injured 134 when they attacked a Jewish school in Ma’a lot, Israel. Note the map of hate and swastika in the group’s May 22, 2005 Syrian-based newsletter.

Yusra Abdu is not Hani Akad. I would explain this further, as you clearly need assistance in understanding this concept, but I fear I may fall into a David Letterman “uma/oprah” pun. But, you demonize Abdu b/c of something Akad’s group did (and way to bring in Libya as well). I imagine that if did some research on this attack of the Jewish school that I would find it’s not as clear cut as you state. But, now I’m starting to see your motive. I bet you are one of those people who think that Isreal is 100% right and Palestine is 100% wrong. Maybe I’m wrong in this assessment, but I doubt it.

But in Oprah’s world, Muslims aren’t terrorists, and terrorists aren’t Muslim (more on that, below). Instead, “O” calls Akad “a charismatic and young rebel.” “O” describes the cold-blooded, hateful Abdu and Akad as “a Shakespearean tragedy.” Yes, in Oprah’s world, Islamic terrorists aren’t terrorists. They’re James Deans, Romeos, and Juliets.

Wait, I forget, a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not always a square, right? Do you disagree with the statement that not all Muslims are terrorists and/or not all terrorists are Muslim? Even someone like you must be able to comprehend that at least one Muslim isn’t a terrorist. So, I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are implying that Oprah is saying that, if you are a terrorist, you can’t be Muslim. By that, I imagine Oprah is saying that to be a Muslim is to believe in god and the teaching of Islam. And since Islam finds such violence reprehensible, then you can’t “really” be a Muslim if you commit such acts. In other words, if you going around killing people in the name of god, you aren’t “really” a Christian. But, I still have this lingering doubt that you really think all Muslims are terrorists.

And it’s not their fault that they’re homicide bombers. Or Islam’s fault. “O” quotes Saudi-funded Islam apologist John Esposito blaming not Islam, but the desperate “context” of their lives. Reality: Most Palestinian homicide bombers, like the 9/11 hijackers, come from wealthy families, but they hate Jews, Christians, and Americans. That’s the “context.”

So if you disagree with Oprah’s statement that it’s not Islam’s fault, then I guess you believe that it IS Islam’s fault. That’s pretty impressive of you to damn an entire religion like that. Were the Crusades Christianity’s fault? Or did a group of people misinterpret the meaning of Christianity? And, since when do most homicide bombers come from rich families??? Please supply the data for that. Why do you get to define the “context” of someone’s life. Is being rich the only “context” you allow for. Are there two types of people in the world, rich and poor? That’s very American of you.

Incredibly, super-heroine Oprah calls this psychobabble-ish, understanding-the-world’s-Islamic-terrorists sob-story, “Rescuing the World’s Girls, Part Five.” And some people actually have the nerve to say Savioratrix Oprah is conceited.

I don’t understand this paragraph.

And what is Oprah’s solution? That’s easy. Donate to Oprah’s Angel Network, “which is awarding a grant to one or more programs that work to prevent Palestinian children from becoming suicide bombers. No thanks. Or donate to UNICEF, “which runs summer camps and trauma programs for Palestinian children.” No, actually, UNICEF helps UNRWA (both UN agencies) propagandize future Islamic terrorists from cradle to grave.

Can you supply the evidence that UNICEF helps propagandize future Islamic terrorists? Also, isn’t this against your theory of not needing the “context” of their lives. How do we know that UNICEF does this w/o first accepting the existence of such context. The very concept of “propaganda” suggests a complex interweaving of nature and nurture.

What about Israeli children’s trauma? How about donating to some Israeli children who are victims of Palestinian terror and need prosthetic limbs, even face implants—because half of their faces were blown off at the Dolfinarium Disco in Tel Aviv? Not a word about them in “O.” They simply don’t exist.

Again, you fail to grasp the most basic definition of logic. Oprah didn’t mention air or water in this article. Does that mean she doesn’t think they exist either? What color bracelet do you have on now? Yellow? Pink? Well, you better have all of them on, b/c if you don’t, then you don’t care about the other issues (or even think they exist). For the record, since our country has a higher population of Israeli people vs. Palestinian, there is already more support for Israeli charities. Perhaps Oprah singled out Palestinians because they are less covered and known about. But I guess you are only allowed to care about Israeli kids.

Oprah’s agenda isn’t new. Her unique understanding of Islamic terrorists is manifest in:

• A post-9/11 “Islam 101” show —a pandering presentation featuring Jordanian Queen Rania Al-Abdullah. Rania claimed she doesn’t have to wear a hijab head-covering and that honor-killings of raped women doesn’t really happen in her country. Of course it doesn’t, since “her country” is a swanky Fifth Avenue New York apartment in the US, where she mostly lives.

You draw a lot of conclusions about Jordan, their queen, and their politics from this segment. Actually, I can’t figure out what those conclusions are. What is your point?

• A September 2004 show, discussing the terrorist massacre of children in Beslan, Russia, on which Oprah banned the use of the word Islamic, saying the terrorists “came from the mountains.” (Okay, so they were Mountainese terrorists, not Islamic ones.) Oprah stated that the Beslan massacre was “a watershed because terrorists never before killed children.” Remember those murdered Jewish kids in Ma’alot (and throughout Israel) by the DFLP? I’m sure they’d disagree with the “Queen of Daytime Talk.” If they were still around.

Oh my god, you are such a horrible person b/c you forgot to mention the children that were killed in 9/11, or the hotel bombings, or any of the other numerous examples. Do these people not exist? Of course Oprah was incorrect in her statement that children were never killed before. But that doesn’t mean she wouldn’t care about those Jewish kids if she knew about them. Just as I imagine you would care about the children that were killed in other terrorists acts that you don’t mention.

• An episode on which a guest claimed Jews practice ritual sacrifices of babies. Oprah: “I want to make it clear that this is one Jewish person, so don’t go around now, saying to people, you know, ‘Those Jewish people, they’re worshipping . . . .’ This is the first time I heard of any Jewish people sacrificing babies, but anyway – so you witnessed the sacrifice?”

Again, what is your point? Is it anti-Semitic to say anything negative about a person who happens to be Jewish? Are you denying that this ritual takes place even on the fringes of radical Jews? There are some radical Islamics who commit acts of terrorism. And, according to this segment, there is one person who practices a radical form of Judiasm where children are sacrificed. I’m not far enough into your rant to realize that your focus is more on Judaism than Oprah’s support of terrorism. Look at how many times you’ve brought it up. What does Judaism have to do with anything? If you were trying to explain that some of the terrorists are motivated by the fact that we support Israel in their conflict with Palestine and the rest of the middle east, I would applaud you. But the beginning of your thesis was that Oprah was trying to humanize the terrorists. And then you spiral out of control in a lunacy base rant on how Oprah hates Jews. Please focus.

• Ignoring the mass-murder, rape, torture, and slavery of Black Christians by Sudan’s Arab Muslim government, despite repeatedly teasing a group of Colorado children (who bought some Black Christian slaves’ freedom) that they’d be on her show. She told them the issue was “too complicated.”

What have you done to bring the issue of Black Christian’s slavery to the forefront? Nothing. Clearly, Oprah has at least mentioned it (or else you wouldn’t be complaining about the lack of attention). I imagine that the issue IS too complicated for a 40 minute show. Especially when there are people as ignorant as you who can’t even handle examining the context of a terrorist’s life.

• Refusing President Bush’s invitation to serve our country by touring Afghani girls’ schools on his behalf. The normally vocal Oprah had “The View’s” Star Jones speak on her behalf, saying the Bush White House “used” her.

President Bush has also requested that people enlist in the Army and serve our country. Have you or your family enlisted? What are you waiting for? Have you gone over to Afgani schools to help? Then how can you criticize Oprah for not doing so? Do you really disagree with the concept of the white house trying to round up celebrities for good PR on the issues?

• Repeated fundraising for “Women to Women, International,” a Muslim women’s charity that claims it stops honor killings, but whose spokeswoman denies that honor killings have anything to do with Islam. Right.

I’m Christian. If I tried to get other Christians to stop killing abortion doctors, and said “listen, killing abortion doctors isn’t what Christianity is all about”, would you call me a hypocrite?

Over the past year, Oprah and her publicity team have pushed Oprah’s latest weight loss—to loud, gushy media acclaim. Oprah, girlfriend, if only you could have gained the weight of a conscience.

Oh, snap. You are sooo clever. Again, your sexism is apparent, as you take shots at her weight in an article that’s supposed to be about politics. I bet you really enjoyed twisting the idea of physical weight loss to the figurative weight of a conscience.

The next time we need someone to “Rescue the World’s Girls,” keep Oprah out of it.

And I’ll end with something equally on point. I don’t know you, but I hate you.