Two Celebrities Just Cannot Keep Their Mouths in Check -- First, George Clooney and then Starr Jones

Let's start with the second of the two: Starr Jones has told viewers that the war on terror is nothing more than a clash of male egos between President Bush and Osama bin Laden, the NEW YORK POST reports.

Yesterday, the co-host of ABC's THE VIEW told viewers during a discussion of bin Laden's latest audio tape:"You know what? At some point, one of these men has to put it back in his pants and zip up the zipper."

She even suggested that Bush hold some kind of talk with the man behind 9/11. "I won't trust him, but anything that gives me the opportunity to seek peace, I would at least check it out. "People make deals with the devil all the time. We make deals with people we don't like," she said.

"You don't negotiate with terrorists," said Elisabeth Hasselbeck, the show's youngest host.

"You don't negotiate," Jones interrupted, "but I do think you figure out when there is a solution that's diplomatic that doesn't result in [loss of] human life. "What do we have to lose to check it out?" Star said.

"You know what?" she then added, "At some point, one of these men has to put it back in his pants and zip up the zipper at some point."

"This isn't somebody whipping it out," shot co-host Meredith Vieira.

"You know what, I'm a little tired of posturing back and forth," Jones replied.

Now, let's move on to George Clooney, who earlier this week was awarded the Golden Globe for Best Actor, and he just could NOT resist the opportunity to display his politics, while accepting the award.

And, the father of controversial Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff is now responding to Clooney for what he’s describing as a “glib and ridiculous attack” on his son.

Frank Abramoff, in a letter addressed to Clooney and sent to The Desert Sun this morning, said he was watching the Golden Globes Monday night when Clooney, during his acceptance speech for best supporting actor, thanked Jack Abramoff “just because” and made a comment about the lobbyist’s name.

“Who would name their kid Jack with the last words ‘off’ at the end of your last name? No wonder that guy is screwed up,” Clooney said during the internationally televised awards show.

In the letter, Frank Abramoff furiously defends the name, saying his son is named after Frank’s father. In the two-page letter, he calls Clooney’s acts a “lapse in lucidity” and an “obscene query.” In a telephone interview with The Desert Sun this morning, Frank Abramoff said Clooney was “an idiot” and described the actions as “pure, unadulterated stupidity.” “You want to make fun. You can do that, but you don't make fun of someone else's hardships and misery,” the 78-year-old Abramoff said. “We’ve gone through quite a bit in our family. But the political end of it and the media end of it and all the other areas are one thing. When you see something like that on a show for 500 million people, it was not only a slap in my son’s face but in my father’s.”

Clooney’s representative in Los Angeles declined comment, saying he had not seen Abramoff’s letter yet. Jack Abramoff’s spokesman, Andrew Blum, also declined to comment.

In the letter, Frank Abramoff says he “wonders how your father would respond, were the roles reversed.”

Clooney’s dad, Nick, is an Augusta, Ky., resident who ran unsuccessfully for Congress and now writes a column for the Cincinnati Post. In a phone interview with The Desert Sun today, Clooney said he wasn’t surprised by his son’s “off hand and flippant” remarks, but did relate with Frank Abramoff’s concerns.

“I understand what it is like to have one's son criticized in a very public way,” Clooney said. “It's very painful and it's very difficult. “The difference here, and it must be said, is Mr. Abramoff's son, instead of pursing some positive efforts to do what he hoped would change the climate of the American politics has confessed and has been convicted by that confession of subverting the political process,” Clooney said.

“It’s not Mr Abramoff senior’s fault that he turned out to be who he is any more than it is to my credit that my son turned out to be what he turned out to be.”

Here's the Open letter:
An open letter to actor George Clooney from Frank Abramoff, Rancho Mirage father of controversial lobbyist Jack Abramoff:

Oh how far Hollywood has fallen. When you rose to accept the Golden Globes best actor award earlier this week, you decided to take a gratuitous slap at my son, my family and even my dear departed father. Is this the tradition of Gable, Bogart, Pacino and Burton? Are you the heir to the dignity and greatness of Hollywood’s past, or more likely a portent to a depressing and horrific future?

Your glib and ridiculous attack on my son, Jack, coupled with your obscene query as to the choice his mother and I made in naming him brought shame and dishonor on you and your profession.

What drove you to this lapse in lucidity, I can never know, but you need to know that your words were deeply hurtful to many innocent and decent people — who love my son and who cherish our family.

We have had to endure two years of unmitigated, outrageous falsehood directed at my son and his record of achievement on behalf of his clients and friends. The blood thirsty media, guilty of untold character assassinations during contemporary times, have even outdone themselves in their lust to create a cartoon which does not come close to resembling this fine man, my son.

The fact that you would spend those few moments accorded to you, as an honor for your work as an actor, bashing his name and his family, is astonishing. How do you sleep at night, other than, perhaps with the drink which you lamented not having at that early hour. Funny, it was very hard for us little people in television land to tell whether you had indulged in the bottle or not.

My son was named after my beloved departed father. His name, too, was Jack Abramoff. And, were he alive today, would be standing firmly behind his namesake, as his entire family and many more true friends than you will ever know.

Not that it matters to you, I am sure, but the worst part of your tirade is that it played out in front of many young people, including my sweet 12-year-old granddaughter, one of Jack’s five children. Jack did not waste his time watching the garbage spewing from your mouth, but his daughter did. You drove her to a fit of tears. Are you proud of that?

For four generations, our family has worked hard to serve this country we love. I enlisted as a young man of seventeen into the United States Navy, so I could serve my nation in WWII. My brother did the same, and we both served in South Pacific. My son dedicated his life to patriotic and religious causes, which have made this nation great. He gave unsparingly of his time and resources to help those in need. You spend your days ridiculing our nation and our traditions. You mock those who serve our nation and its flag. You revile my son and publicly try to humiliate him in front of a national audience.

I have news for you George Clooney — one day the truth about my son will come out and there will be a lot of people in your industry and others lined up to apologize for their efforts to destroy him and our family. You won’t be in that line, though, be cause the plague of arrogance and falsehood will surely continue to blind your eyes and cause your tongue to disgrace the parents who brought you onto the earth.

One wonders how your father would respond, were the roles reversed.

One wonders whether your children would delight in someone lampooning your name and besmirching your reputation.

You have brought yourself to a low unparalleled by the greats of your profession.

Shame on you.

FRANK ABRAMOFF
Rancho Mirage, CA

Food for Thought:

(Published in the Council Bluffs Daily Nonpareil, [linked below], as “Media Should Leave Cronkite Alone” on January 19, 2006)

A couple of things caught my attention over the January Holiday weekend.

First, there seems to be an awful lot of bipartisan talk about the use of force against Iran, over their obvious development of a nuclear bomb. I'd like to point this out, because none of the Democrats will remember anything they're currently saying, if force becomes a necessity. Just pointing out that words have meaning, and parsing the historical effect of them seems to be a current trend among those on the left. Shouldn't we hear some thoughts from our local pundits, on the matter, or will they simply remain quiet, leaving the decisions to George W. Bush, for later critical review?

Secondly, I couldn't help but notice that the formerly revered and self-avowed liberal commentator, Walter Cronkite took it upon himself to announce that "it's time for the U.S. to leave Iraq." Maybe he hasn't noticed that the vast majority of America stopped listening to him, decades ago. Senility is something that a family member should try to monitor, don't you think? No wonder Charlton Heston's family keeps him sequestered. It's the right thing to do.

Cronkite also opined that he should never have retired, and given up his job at CBS to Dan Rather. He pointed out that "Rather never really worked out, all that well," and said that he's still available for rehire, if they really want some experience to replace Rather on a permanent basis. He also said that he's regretted that retirement announcement since about twenty-four hours after having told his bosses at CBS, (proving my senility point). Why can't the media just leave the likes of Walter Cronkite and Charlton Heston alone?

Dan Larsen
Council Bluffs



Reader opinions:


Jim Thorn Jan, 19 2006
While you're earmarking things for future recollection, Dan, note your statements about Cronkite for your own future complaints about "personal attacks." At no point do you actually engage any point raised by Cronkite, you merely criticize him personally -- and inaccurately as well, since whether one agrees or disagrees with him he is plainly not suffering from a tragic degenerative disease like Heston.

As for using force against Iran, I'm happy to go on record for you. I have no blanket objection to the use of force in international relations, but I do feel that force should be used only when ethically justifiable and when realistically practicable.

All of the force options I'm aware of having available against Iran would almost certainly be counter-productive. Similar spellings notwithstanding, Iran is far larger and far better-armed than Iraq was, its nuke operations are too widespread for an Osirak-style surgical airstrike to have any reliable effect, and -- to be blunt -- we have inadequate resources available to use on a large scale against Iran because we're already painfully overstretched next door in smaller, weaker Iraq.

I will actually be surprised if in the case of Iran even the Bush Administration is foolish enough to do more than talk force for their political base while they walk diplomacy.

Now you go on record, Dan. Exactly what military action(s) do you propose employing against Iran?


Dan Larsen Jan. 20, 2006
I’m sorry, Jim. If you’re unfamiliar with Cronkite’s track record, the search is only a google away. I often forget the level at which liberals like yourself view these things. Until sometime in the early 1990s, (a full decade after he retired), Cronkite was viewed by nearly all recognized media polling as the most recognized and reliable source for any/all news and opinion. But time marches on. Maybe you cannot remember those statistics, either, but you don’t’ seem to put the same criticism toward my commentary on Heston, because you DO remember his record. I’m sure you’ll find the search to be enlightening.

I see you’ve managed to straddle the fence, rather nicely in your non-position statements, too. Saying that “all the force options . . . against Iran would most certainly be counter-productive,” is nicely worded and allows you plenty of wiggle-room, to pull out the partisanship and politicize the issue at a later time. Thanks. It’s a wonderful demonstration why America should never consider election of a member of the Democrat Party to the leadership of the Free World.

As far as my position on this issue, let’s just point out two things: 1) I’m not the person who continually takes a position, only to flip-flop to the opposite side, when things go badly; and 2) I needn’t posture a position because that is the reason it’s so important to elect a President in an intelligent and deliberative way, just like happened in the last two national elections. Trust me, when I tell you, Jim – even though the Republicans have lots of problems doing what they were elected to do, those red states aren’t turning blue in the immediate future, partly because of the way Howard Dean is running your party, but mostly because you guys cannot seem to articulate a position of strength on any particular issue, except abortion.

Now that the Alito hearings are over, shouldn’t there be some performance/satisfaction polling on Senator Chappaquidick, Senator Schumer, Senator Feinstein, or the “plantation” comments by Senator Clinton?

God Bless,
Dan’L

Jim Thorn Jan, 20 2006
As usual, Dan, you respond to things I never said and avoid answering the direct question I asked you.

First, I never said Cronkite isn't liberal. I said he isn't senile, which is what you accused him of so you that could avoid addressing his actual statements in any substantive way. And I didn't say Charlton Heston has a tragic degenerative disease because he's conservative; I said it because he's been medically diagnosed as having Alzheimer's.

Second, the position I took isn't fence-straddling. I said "all the options I'm aware of" because this small box doesn't afford enough room to detail them all and because there must be some I haven't thought of. I did detail two that won't work: an Osirak-style bombing strike and an all-out invasion. Then I asked you which specific military actions you recommend, and you dodged the question by throwing up your usual smokescreen of non sequiturs and false accusations.

Third, you apparently accuse me of flip-flopping, although it could be that you just threw in an irrelevant snark at John Kerry for no apparent reason because it's a nervous tic you suffer from, like Tourette's. If you did mean me, though, please specify the issues on which you accuse me of flip-flopping.

As for Hillary's "plantation" comment, I found it appalling; I'm not a fan of hers, although I still like her far better than your guy.

Usama bin Laden offers a truce!

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - A Pakistani security official on Thursday said at least three top al-Qaida operatives were believed killed in a U.S. missile strike last week, including an explosives expert on the U.S. most-wanted list and a close relative of the terror network's No. 2 leader Ayman al-Zawahri.

A security official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he's not authorized to speak to media, said Egyptian Midhat Mursi was among the three top al-Qaida figures who were present in Damadola village at the time of the attack and whose bodies were believed to have been taken away by sympathizers.

The U.S. Justice Department says on its Web site that Midhat Mursi al-Sayid Umar, also known as Abu Khabab al-Masri, is an expert in explosives and poisons who operated a terrorist training camp at Derunta, near the eastern Afghan city of Jalalabad.

The Web site also says Mursi has written training manuals containing recipes for crude chemical and biological weapons, some of which were recovered by U.S. forces in Afghanistan. The site says Mursi's exact whereabouts are unknown but adds that he may be residing in Pakistan, and offers $5 million for information leading to his arrest.

The Pakistani official named two other foreign militants as suspected killed in the missile strike: Abu Ubaida, whom he said was the main operations chief for al-Qaida in Afghanistan's eastern Kunar province, which lies opposite Pakistan's Bajur tribal region where Damadola is located; and Abdul Rehman al-Misri, a close relative of al-Zawahri, possibly his son-in-law.
He stressed that their bodies have not been found.

"We do not have any evidence to prove that they have been killed, but we have indications that they were there and were among those bodies that were taken away," the official said, declining to elaborate.

A second Pakistani security official confirmed that security agencies were investigating the three men as possible victims of the air strike Friday which officials have said targeted but missed al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden's top aide.

Officials say the attack also killed 18 local residents.
Pentagon officials said they had no information on the reported identities of the dead and CIA spokesman Tom Crispell said the agency could not comment.
The New York Times and ABC also reported that al-Zawahri's son-in-law was believed killed in the strike, but provided a different identity.

Pakistani Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed said the government believed some foreigners were killed in the attack, but authorities had not retrieved their bodies so their identities have not been confirmed by DNA tests.

"As far as our information is concerned, we confirm that there were some foreigners who were killed," Ahmed said. "But regarding their names, we are investigating."

Pakistani Interior Minister Aftab Sherpao told The Associated Press on Wednesday that the bodies may have been taken by a local pro-Taliban cleric, Maulana Faqir Mohammed, who also is being hunted by authorities.

Provincial authorities said sympathizers took the bodies of four or five foreign militants to bury them in the mountains near the Afghan border, thereby preventing their identification.
"Efforts are under way to investigate further," said Shah Zaman Khan, director-general of media relations for Pakistan's tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.

He said authorities were also looking for Faqir Mohammed and another prominent pro-Taliban cleric accused of harboring militants. Both men were allegedly in Damadola and survived the assault.

Intelligence officials say al-Zawahri is thought to have sent some of his aides in his place to an Islamic holiday dinner to which he'd been invited in Damadola on the night of the attack.

Hours after the attack, an Associated Press reporter visited the village, which consists of a half-dozen widely scattered houses on a hillside about four miles from the Afghan border.
Residents said then that all the dead were local people and no one had taken any bodies away. However, it appeared feasible that bodies or wounded could have been spirited away in the darkness after the attack, which took place at about 3 a.m.

Islamic custom dictates that bodies be buried as soon as possible, and the reporter saw 13 freshly filled graves with simple headstones and five empty graves alongside them _ apparently prepared for more dead. When the reporter returned the next day, the five empty graves were filled in, apparently because no more bodies had been found in the rubble.

The only tidbits of official information that have surfaced since then have come from provincial authorities, and they have yet to give a list of the dead. But Pakistani intelligence officials have said they also believe some of those killed were Pakistani militants and that their bodies were also removed from the scene.

A Pakistani army official has told the AP that some bodies were taken away for DNA tests _ information at odds with reports from provincial authorities. The federal government has not confirmed the report about DNA tests.

Pakistan maintains it was not given advance word of the airstrike, which was reportedly carried out by unmanned Predator drones flying from Afghanistan, and has condemned it as killing innocent civilians.

Thousands have taken to the streets in protest over the attack, denouncing the U.S. and Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who ended Pakistan's support of the Taliban regime in late 2001 and has himself been targeted by al-Qaida attacks.

*******************************************************************
Yet, if you're a Democrat, you believe that there is absolutely NOTHING being done by our military, that could possibly be construed as "a positive step toward resolution of the issues surrounding the real reasons why we're involved in this War on Terror, (hint: Google the term "September 11, 2001 Terrorism").

God Bless,
Dan'L