Donohue Goes After Olbermann

Proving that he is as incapable of parsing a sentence as he is of extending the "civil rights" to anyone other than the 350,000 members of his organization, Bill Donohue referred to Keith Olbermann as a "smear merchant." (Well, at least he didn't call him a "smear merchant of Venice". And in one of those great ironies that provokes in me that great Australian bit of profanity fuck me dead, Donohue agreed with Bill "Loofah-up-your-hoohaw" O'Reilly that Olbermann was a smear merchant. I fucking kid you not.

From dated today, Donohue says:

O’REILLY IS RIGHT:
OLBERMANN IS A “SMEAR MERCHANT”

Catholic League president Bill Donohue responded to MSNBC talk-show host Keith Olbermann’s comment last night that Donohue made a bigoted statement when he once said, “Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.” Here is Donohue’s rejoinder:

“Bill O’Reilly was right when he referred to Keith Olbermann as a ‘notorious smear merchant.’ Here’s why.

Okay. Here comes the part where those proverbial apples get equated with matzoh.

“On July 31, 2006, Olbermann interviewed Tom O’Neil, a Hollywood observer, and in the course of discussing Mel Gibson’s drunken anti-Semitic rant, O’Neil wondered aloud whether Mel could come back from this incident: ‘I don’t see how Mel rallies from this, especially in Jewish Hollywood.’ A few seconds later, Olbermann said, ‘And let’s clarify so nobody puts you on that list of folks who said things. When you said Jewish Hollywood, you meant the Jewish community in Hollywood, not Jewish Hollywood.’ O’Neil answered affirmatively.

“So let’s clarify for Olbermann’s sake. When I referred to Hollywood being run by secular Jews, how is this any different from what O’Neil said?

Um. Bill. Let's compare, shall we? Tom O'Neil, and the others you cite, refer to Jews. Or Jewish Hollywood. You said, "secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular."

Don't know about you, but I see a teensy-weensy bit of difference there. It's sort of like saying, Catholic Rome, or Catholic Boston, and saying "Jew-hating, blood-libel believing, Christ-killer-calling Catholics." See, the second is anti-Catholic, because, in fact, not all Catholics hate Jews nor hold them responsible for the Crucifixion. You, however, seem to not have gotten the memo from your Pope that Jews are not responsible for the death of Christ. You, and Bill O'Reilly, and Mel "Sugartits" Gibson (and Mel's father, who believes that the six million Jews killed in the Holocaust all moved to Brooklyn), those Catholics—the ones who have threatened to rape and murder the two women you went after just a couple of days ago—those Catholics, Bill, are assholes. ASSHOLES.

Fuck you, Bill. We are watching every fucking word that comes out of your mouth. Let the accountability games begin.


Lorraine's picture

| | |

Visit our sponsors

Fill up our coffee fund

BlogAds

Visit our sponsors

Upcoming events

Who's online

There are currently 3 users and 1578 guests online.

Get our Digestifs du jour

Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Member's articles and stories

More stories

Words to live by

I of all people should know better. The civil rights movement in the U.S. told women to stop talking about gender issues because first the fight against racism had to be won. The feminist movement frowned at women of colour raising their issues, insisting that first the fight against the patriarchy had to be won. The nationalist movements in Africa insisted that feminism was a corrupt and decadent western import, and that first we had to capture our earthly kingdoms, and achieve our panAfricanist Nirvana, before we started looking at "side issues". And those of us who are interested in our contemporary political dynamics have fallen into the same pit of not tackling the prickly, the uncomfortable questions now: we are waiting to win the larger battle before we clean our house. There is always another battle or another issue, and the matters that matter to the foot soldiers are postponed for yet another day. Yet, these issues ARE the battle. We fight for freedom --and do not imagine we are doing anything less--because it is the freedom to live our lives the way we want, from the jobs we choose to the people we fall in love with. If we cannot tackle them, then we are not equipped to tackle anything. What are the lines of difference we draw? For what do we engage, argue, participate and in some heroes' cases, take awful risks? For what?


Instant Congress

Don't know your Senators or US Representatives' phone numbers?
Enter your street address and zip code and find out right now.
Street number and name only:
Zip Code (5 digits):


Subscribe Buttons

Feed IconGoogleDeliciousYahoo!BloglinesNewsgatorMSNFeedsterAOLFurlRojoNewsburstPluckFeedFeedsAdd KinjaMultiRSSrMailRSSFwdBlogarithmSimplify