Liberal comedian Jon Stewart featured a rare conservative voice on Tuesday's Daily Show, former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen. As he often does during the occasions he talks to right-leaning guests, Stewart turned combative, attacking Thiessen for "living in a selective world."
The ex-Bush aide appeared to promote his new book Courting Disaster, which defends and advocates for the administration's CIA's interrogation program. After Thiessen argued that the tactics stopped another terror attack in the U.S. after 9/11, Stewart lectured, "The bombings in Britain, the bombings in Afghanistan, the bombings in a Iraq. It's a selective world that you live in and you must be lovely to live there. Things are not so clear cut."
At the end of the segment, Stewart started to go to break and added, "We'll go to commercial and then we'll keep talking." An incredulous Thiessen retorted, "So, you talk and we go to commercial?" He challenged, "I can't get my points on the air?" A sarcastic Stewart quipped, "Geez, I'm trying to think of a way can I remove what I said and just have you speak." He then offered Thiessen a chance for rebuttal on the internet.
This did happen, but very few people are actually going to go to Comedy Central's website and listen to the extended segments.
(Thanks to Ben Graham for transcribing the segment.)
A partial transcript of the March 9 segment follows:
JON STEWART: Let me get to the larger point here which I think is maybe the issue. The thing that I object to is the idea of safety. And I'll explain that. The idea that that can be a concrete certainty. This makes us safe. This doesn't. These are subjective realities. The idea of something that makes us safe, you can make the argument that Guantanamo keeps us safe because there are bad people in it. They can make the argument that by having Guantanamo open it allows easier recruitment for terrorists, which ultimately-
MARC THIESSEN: I disagree with that entirely.
STEWART: I know you disagree with it, but I'm saying that is a valid argument.
THIESSEN: Well, I don't think it is. There was no Guantanamo Bay when they tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993.
STEWART: It's not the only reason but it all goes into- What I'm saying is-
THIESSEN: Let me make my point-
STEWART: Let me just very quickly go. [Thiessen laughs in frustration.] It's a- As conservatives would like to say it's a complex adaptive system very similar to climate change.
THIESSEN: Except it's real. [Laughs.]
STEWART: And Republicans and conservatives are suggesting without any of the science that backs climate change that they know the equation, that they can solve the unsolvable, that Liz Cheney knows more about this than say Matthew Alexander who was doing the interrogating.
THIESSEN: Matthew Alexander interrogated people for three months. The people that --
STEWART: How long did Liz Cheney do it for?
THIESSEN: The interrogators that I talked about in this book, where you meet the interrogators who--
STEWART: Not all of them, the ones that you chose.
THIESSEN: The ones that-
STEWART: Not all of them.
THIESSEN: The ones that ran the program.
STEWART: Ali Soufan is not in this book.
THIESSEN: Actually he is in the book.
STEWART: Well, he wouldn't talk to you in the book.
THIESSEN: He wouldn't talk to me, but I talked about him.
STEWART: Oh, I know.
THIESSEN: Ali Soufan, the sainted hero of left who says we can get all this information.
STEWART: [interrupting] Sorry, sorry.
THIESSEN: I appreciate the enthusiasm. Ali Soufan the sainted hero of left who says we can get all this information with the FBI's techniques. He was put in charge of the interrogation of Muhammad Al Qahtani, the 20th hijacker in Guantanamo Bay and got nothing from him. Ali Soufan then threw him into the navy brig for two months. Told them that he could have no human contact, people had to wear masks. This is in the department of Justice report and got nothing still. It was only when the military took over his interrogation that they got interrogation reports out of him. Ali Soufan failed with his techniques to break. And on top of that Muhammad Al Qahtani said the worst thing that happened to him in Guantanamo Bay was Ali Soufan putting him in two months in isolation. This is not so clean.
STEWART: Absolutely. I think the point is that it's not clean. You can't know for certain.
THIESSEN: No you can't.
STEWART: And when these things.
THIESSEN: Jon--
STEWART: Yeah, sorry.
THIESSEN: Jon, when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was brought into CIA custody he had information about terrorist attacks planned on the united states. We were not attacked for seven years after the 9/11 attacks. So there's a reason for it.
STEWART: We were not attacked for seven years after the first World Trade Center- on our homeland.
THIESSEN: Not on our home land. They blew up the World Trade Center, the bombings in east Africa, the USS Cole, then finally 9/11.
STEWART: The bombings in Britain, the bombings in Afghanistan, the bombings in a Iraq. It's a selective world that you live in and you must be lovely to live there. Things are not so clear cut. And the idea that you can state equivocally that these lawyers- Let me say this quickly. We'll go to commercial and then we'll keep talking.
THIESSEN: [Laughes wryly] So you talk and we go to commercial?
STEWART: That's right. Honestly when I come on your show I'd be delighted you to let you do that. But, the idea that you can castigate people as though they are purposefully making America less safe and in league with the terrorists that we're fighting because they disagree with your ideas about safety, I think what is offensive about that. We can talk about. It won't be on the show. It will be on the internet unedited.
THIESSEN: I can't get my points out on the air?
STEWART: I thought-
THIESSEN: You did most of the talking.
STEWART: I apologize then. I will let you- Geez, I'm trying to think of a way can I remove what I said and just have you speak. Honestly you feel like you I've not let you make any points.
THIESSEN: I think you talked right through me.
STEWART: I sincerely apologize. We will. We will come back. You can correct it on the web and people will judge how poorly you've been treated. I do apologize. It's techniques I learned.
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.
Coming soon: A brand-new NewsBusters design. But we need your help!
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Being a Leftist is Great Fun
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 18:51 ET by allanfYou get to pontificate, call names and harass people. You can moralize and feel good about youself, supported by the catcalls of vapid celebutards and network newsies. You can even bring out the Sign of the McCarthy should victims begin to fight back.
When France is their idea of
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 19:00 ET by ThoreauWhen France is their idea of good government, there's just nothing left to say.
You can obtain some good
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 19:06 ET by BeukeboomYou can obtain some good weapons in France. Only dropped once.
there it is...
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 20:50 ET by Kekela Ward"Never fired, dropped only once".
Clown nose off.......
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 20:19 ET by d1carterClown nose off.......
Unlike Bill O'Reilly,
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 19:03 ET by theriotUnlike Bill O'Reilly, Stewart when he and his guest go into overtime he doesn't edit the interview and show bits and pieces on tv, then the whole thing on the internet.
This is far better. And when I watched the videos on The Daily Show's website over 250,000 people had watched the first part of the interview. So far over 560,000 people have watched the three parts combined.
The part that did air on tv was about ten minutes long, and Marc Thiessen talked for about five minutes of the interview, it wasn't all Jon Stewart talking. He was aggressive, but he wasn't disrespectful, he didn't cut his mic.
Being Cavil: Why do you want to bring O'Reilly into this?
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 19:31 ET by allanfWhy do you want to bring O'Reilly into this discussion. Story editing is not the issue here, it's Stewart's heavy handed treatment of his guest.
Lot's of stories are heavily editied. Can you spell R-A-T-H-E-R? What does O'Relly have to do with this story.
I mention Oreilly because
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 19:51 ET by theriotI mention Oreilly because when Stewart was on Oreilly's show a few weeks ago they edited it, and left Stewart's better points for the web. Stewart didn't do that, I believe he was fair to his guest and his audience by letting them see the interviw as it happened and not the parts he wanted them to see like Oreilly.
Oh please. I'm not one to
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 20:36 ET by ApacheOh please. I'm not one to defend BOR but that comment is beyond goofy. BOR put the unedited interview on the web just as Stewart did with this. Claiming Stewart doesn't edit his shows is absurd. Jim Cramer's interview was edited to make Stewart look like he was whipping the snot out of him but the full interview shows Cramer making several points that the audience cheered. None of those made it to tv. Plus BOR doesn't pretend to be a comedian when called out. Whenever Stewart is called out for his nonsense he claims he is just a comedian and hides behind his clown nose. It's like punching one of those inflatable clowns. No accountability there. And I don't know if it's just that I'm getting older or if it has truly run it's course, but snarky comments are getting old. Stewart is good at it. Maybe the best, but it still just comes across as lazy and predictable anymore. It's like he even knows what he is saying is BS and is in deep deep denial. He can only lash out. I also think he is jealous of people like Glenn Beck and BOR. He wants to be the left wing Beck but is too scared to give up his clown shield.
OK, so Stewart doesn't edit
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 22:30 ET by ThoreauOK, so Stewart doesn't edit his shows.. forgive me for calling BS, but yea- I call BS.
If you know the guy in editing, then please let us know. Because if there is a guy in editing- then you're going to fall into a slight logic trap. Because he's in editing. Doing editing.
Are you talking to me?
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 22:45 ET by ApacheAre you talking to me? Because I agree with you.
Stewart used to do what
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 22:44 ET by theriotStewart used to do what O'Reilly did, edit the extended interview and then put it all online. But he stopped doing that a few months ago, and now does it the way he did the other night. That way people see the interview in its' entirety from stop to finish without editing.
If that is true then I
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 22:59 ET by ApacheIf that is true then I suspect we will see a Chris Mathews style emerge against those he doesn't align with politically. I don't watch him nearly as much as I once did. I think the original daily show was a better idea. It didn't go after or cater to ideologies. It went after the news media as a whole and was brilliant. More than it was ever given credit for. Stewart took over and realized he could hold a certain demographic with "bush's fault" rhetoric without much effort. He now seems to just play it safe and cater to one little group that doesn't care if he is funny as long as he reinforces their biases. Even at that, if he was funny I would still watch. Now he just has his moments. It's like SNL now. You must watch a dozen episodes to find a good one.
Well it’s not workin’ so well…
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 23:17 ET by JPR1Boring as hell for that matter. Honestly editing an interview serves the viewer, by reducing the time required to understand the guests viewpoints. Stewarts approach is simply a lame attempt at making Stewart look intelligent.
His highest achievement will be one day figuring out how to interrupt himself. The tricky part will be his deciding… “Let’s see, am I interrupting myself to make me look stupid or intelligent?”
Until they present an edited
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 00:11 ET by balboaUntil they present an edited interview and then you'd scream "Foul! Foul, I say!"
Honestly edited bal, honestly...
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 00:38 ET by JPR1Admittedly a tall order in cases like this, but I won't scream foul unless it's clearly an attempt to either color someone's position unfairly or obscure it altogether.
My problem with this particular "episode" with Stewart is that it becomes just too damn much work to get anything out of the interview.
For the record, imo O'Reilly is frequently guilty of the same.
Perhaps it's too much work,
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 00:43 ET by balboaPerhaps it's too much work, but I watched the whole thing online and thought it was well worth it.
So tell me bal…
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 01:12 ET by JPR1I watched the first part yesterday. Perhaps it was my state of mind at the time, but I decided, “this is not reasoned discourse, this is some jackass trying not to be too obvious about berating a guest he invited on his program.” If you can honestly tell me the subsequent parts offer more reasoned dialogue I’ll give em’ a spin tomorrow.
Right now I’m outta gas for the night.
what is an interview?
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 20:19 ET by mom_roxI usually watch TDS, and I watched this one live. In a typical interview, the host will ask a question, the guest will respond, and the responses are longer than the questions.
The transcript posted above shows how Stewart would interrupt and comment or pose a new question without letting Thiessen give a complete response. Yes, BOR does this too, which is why I do not enjoy watching his interviews.
~~save your tea, dump congress~~
I was wondering why Stewart
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 20:25 ET by Radical1979I was wondering why Stewart brought Liz Cheney into this. She wasn't part of the Bush administration and it wasn't her book being discussed.
Maybe because she's going
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 20:45 ET by steve05Jon kept interrupting because the guy was making absurd statements. like there were NO terrorist attacks in the world when bush was in office.
She wasn't relevant to the
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 20:48 ET by Radical1979She wasn't relevant to the convesation, and UpNorth and I are still waiting for you to tell us which attacks they were.
I _think_ Liz Cheney was
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 00:42 ET by balboaI _think_ Liz Cheney was referenced by Jon because she called the defense lawyers "the al-quaeda seven."
bal I still don't think it
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 09:57 ET by Radical1979bal I still don't think it was relevant because she's not part of his book or his argument that these tactics kept us safe.
Last time I checked,
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 20:53 ET by UpNorthit isn't the job of POTUS to prevent terrorist attacks "in the world". Still waiting.
With all due respect to Sarah Palin...
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 00:34 ET by ckc1227You're one retarded mofo. Next you'll be telling us American health care sucks because people are dying of malaria in Africa.
trollie5
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 05:51 ET by ToneyukiWhere did he make the statement "there were NO terrorist attacks in the world when Bush was in office"?
He said homeland, aka the good old US of A
I call BS
"Relativity applies to physics, not ethics" Albert Einstein
I left the Republican party because the Republic party went to the LEFT of me.
toneyuki
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 06:01 ET by MrShyWell, and USA interests, which he should have made clear. But yes, Jon swooped right in because he's so far-left partisan and unhinged.
US soil AND US interests:
4 during the Clinton administration (if not more, and I'm just not counting them all...)
1 during the Bush admin (9/11) and 0 since in the last 7 1/2 years of his 8 year tenure.
I'm not looking for anyone's pity. - Jer
There have been studies. - Jer
Mr Shy
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 07:08 ET by well99World Trade Center Bombing, February 26, 1993
Attempted Assassination of President Bush by Iraqi Agents, April 14, 1993
Attack on U.S. Diplomats in Pakistan, March 8, 1995: Two unidentified gunmen killed two U.S. diplomats and wounded a third in Karachi, Pakistan.
Bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, April 19, 1995
Attack on U.S. Embassy in Moscow, September 13, 1995: A rocket-propelled grenade was fired through the window of the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, ostensibly in retaliation for U.S. strikes on Serb positions in Bosnia.
Khobar Towers Bombing, June 25, 1996: A fuel truck carrying a bomb exploded outside the US military's Khobar Towers housing facility in Dhahran, killing 19 U.S. military personnel and wounding 515 persons, including 240 U.S. personnel.
Empire State Building Sniper Attack, February 23, 1997: A Palestinian gunman opened fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland, and France before turning the gun on himself.
U.S. Embassy Bombings in East Africa, August 7, 1998: A bomb exploded at the rear entrance of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, killing 12 U.S. citizens, 32 Foreign Service Nationals (FSNs), and 247 Kenyan citizens. Approximately 5,000 Kenyans, 6 U.S. citizens, and 13 FSNs were injured.
Attack on U.S.S. Cole, October 12, 2000: In Aden, Yemen, a small dingy carrying explosives rammed the destroyer U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39 others. Supporters of Usama Bin Laden were suspected.
I may be wrong but I do believe their was terrorist acts during Clinton.
well99 good job. Steve
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 09:57 ET by Radical1979well99 good job. Steve 05? Can you make a list like this to support your earlier argument? We're all waiting, well99 has shown you how it's done. C'mon Steve, we're waiting.
Radical, If your waiting
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 10:59 ET by Scuba DudeRadical,
If your waiting for Stevie to come back with ANYTHING to support his argument be prepared for this.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" Tacitus
Scuba - LOL
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 11:02 ET by Radical1979Scuba - LOL
keep playing ignorant.
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 14:21 ET by steve05keep playing ignorant. terrorists have been on strike since bush took office. keep believing that.
In other words,
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 14:25 ET by UpNorthyou have nothing? Is that what you're saying, stevie? Because it sure looks that way.
Steve that wasn't the
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 15:00 ET by Radical1979Steve that wasn't the argument. It was terrorists striking on U.S. soil after use of interrogation techniques. Waiting for you to prove they have.
trollie5
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 20:28 ET by ToneyukiI called BS
and your calling us ignorant? Just admit you made a mistake.
"Relativity applies to physics, not ethics" Albert Einstein
I left the Republican party because the Republic party went to the LEFT of me.
Jon Stewart and Komrades-
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 19:07 ET by BO STINKSYOU ARE GONNA GET US ALL KILLED!
Complete and utter fools.
"Liberals have managed to eliminate the idea of manly honor. Instead, all they have is womanly indignation." ~Ann Coulter
Well, I understand your
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 19:28 ET by ConservativeRexWell, I understand your sentiments BO, but these basteges will not get all of us. Guys like Stewart are CS, and when it really does go down, you can count on them to either A) help the enemy (it's not like it's not presedented) or B) be far to the rear.
Any event, I wouldn't want them anywhere near me. Because with folks like him, it would be difficult for me to decide which direction to shoot. LOL Have a good one BO!
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
You too,Conservie Rex-
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 19:35 ET by BO STINKSWhat does CS mean? Or can't you say on NB? Never mind I just remembered; naughty, but oh so true!
"Liberals have managed to eliminate the idea of manly honor. Instead, all they have is womanly indignation." ~Ann Coulter
So [Stewart] gets pwned on
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 19:07 ET by BKeyserSo [Stewart] gets pwned on the [Ali Soufan] talking point, then retreats to commercial and the end of the segment.
(I filled in the blanks from the standard result of a liberal interviewing a conservative.)
Stop federal judges
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 19:30 ET by tim413Stop federal judges from foisting their notions of "fairness" on the States. Amend the 14th Amendment! - tim413
Mrs. Cheney, too.
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 19:33 ET by tim413He did the same thing to Mrs. Cheney when she said we were not attacked again after 9/11. He said, "What about the attack in Britain"? She repeated, "I said American interests." He said, "But they ARE our allies." His audience moaned. Why doesn't someone call Steewart on this? We can't keep the entire world safe.
Stop federal judges from foisting their notions of "fairness" on the States. Amend the 14th Amendment! - tim413
Wasn't that one of the lib
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 19:38 ET by Mr. MikeWasn't that one of the lib talking points circa 2004. "We can't police the world!!!!" "George Boooooosh polices the world like a dictator...and he eats kittens!!!!"
Stewart's an opportunistic scumbag. I would never trust this guy enough to go on his show!
Wasn't that one of the lib
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 10:40 ET by JerWasn't that one of the lib talking points circa 2004. "We can't police the world!!!!"
No. It wasn't. In fact, that's closer to the GOP talking points circa 2000.
Jer
very few people?
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 19:31 ET by jimspiceYeah, I wouldn't call 280,000 very few people.
"It's a selective world you live in..."
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 19:48 ET by ProudAmerican58And it must be lovely to live there, Mr. Stewart.
I would suggest that before
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 20:00 ET by theriotI would suggest that before people comment on this they watch all three parts of their conversation on thedailyshow.com. Because this is about a third of the entire conversation.
And who are you to say-
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 20:03 ET by BO STINKSThat we didn't watch all three parts? You aren't doin' that thar omniscient thingy libs like to do, are ya?
"Liberals have managed to eliminate the idea of manly honor. Instead, all they have is womanly indignation." ~Ann Coulter
BO
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 21:04 ET by well99He has ESPN.It is the Olbermann version of ESP.
*Chuckle, snort, hoot*
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 21:07 ET by BO STINKSDurn it, gotta go to a thing. Good night and see y'all tomorrow.
"Liberals have managed to eliminate the idea of manly honor. Instead, all they have is womanly indignation." ~Ann Coulter
Isn't the point that he
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 05:53 ET by ToneyukiIsn't the point that he didn't put the points on air? Where most of his audience watch him?
"Relativity applies to physics, not ethics" Albert Einstein
I left the Republican party because the Republic party went to the LEFT of me.
This theissen guy is a JOKE
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 20:16 ET by steve05Is thiessen serious?
This guy just made up a bunch garbage and then tried to get away with it.
He said no terrorist attacks occurred under bush, they all occurred under clinton.
Is he that dumb? is he lying? is he living in his own world?
He went on to mention a bunch of foreign attacks. Stewart rightly called him out on his BS then this guy cries that he doesn't get a chance to correct his BS?
cry me a river. if you lie that blatantly I do not feel sorry for you. Keep on believing that there were no terrorist attacks on American interests and or allies under bush, nobody will buy your book if it's full of make believe and wishful thinking.
When, after 9/11, during
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 20:22 ET by Radical1979When, after 9/11, during Bush's presidency, were we attacked on our homeland?
That wasn't the guys point.
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 20:48 ET by steve05That wasn't the guys point. He stated a bunch of foreign attacks under clinton and then said nothing like that happened under bush, which is false.
How many terrorist attacks happened against our interests or allies during the bush years? This guy thinks it zero.
Steve - he certainly
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 20:54 ET by Radical1979Steve - he certainly acknoweldged the 9/11 attackes, which was the basis for his book. The U.S. cannot control attacks in a foreign country, even an ally because they aren't under our domain. Theissan was defending the use of interrogation techniques to protect OUR country, and there were no attacks on U.S. soil after 9/11 under Bush.
Why was this not answered by steve05?
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 01:15 ET by JWFThis is a valid point. The troll let it slide by without response.
JWF - because Steve05 ran
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 09:53 ET by Radical1979JWF - because Steve05 ran away.
So will there be a Steve06?
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 13:07 ET by BeukeboomSo will there be a Steve06?
Please Lord no.
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 14:58 ET by Radical1979Please Lord no.
So where does Richard "shoebomber" Reid
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 10:47 ET by JerSo where and how does Richard "shoebomber" Reid fit in this scenario? The U.S. ought to be able to control attacks on an American Airlines flight bound for Miami. That it occurred less than three months after 9/11 is astounding.
Jer
Did the attack
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 11:04 ET by Scuba DudeDid the attack succeed?
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" Tacitus
Fortunately no. If that
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 11:44 ET by JerFortunately no. If that disqualifies it from consideration, then we can scratch the underwear bomber incident over Detroit during the present administration.
Jer
No, I do not think you can
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 12:53 ET by Scuba DudeNo, I do not think you can scratch the Fruit of the Boom off the list. Reid made his attempt 3 months after 9/11. Was the TSA even fully operational at that time? I highly doubt it. Where as FOTB made his attempt 8 years later.
So the FOTB stays in Obama's column.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" Tacitus
Seem to be a lot of
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 12:58 ET by balboaSeem to be a lot of qualifiers to what does or doesn't count.
Only one qualifier, if it is
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 13:45 ET by theriotOnly one qualifier, if it is a democrat in office (socialist, communist, Marxist, tyrant, dictator, or whatever they are calling him today) then it stays in the column. If the president is a republican then it doesn't count, those are the qualifiers.
theriot...
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 14:10 ET by JerBingo.
Jer
BIG BINGO. There are so
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 14:27 ET by steve05BIG BINGO.
There are so many angry, bitter partisans here. a republican can never do anything wrong. It's all the evil communist democrats fault.
As the GOP memo said, the base is reactionary.
There you are Steve, still
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 14:58 ET by Radical1979There you are Steve, still no answer to the question you were asked yesterday?
Radical, I think we
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 15:47 ET by Scuba DudeRadical,
I think we should give Steve05 a nickname. How does "Crickets" sound to you? It does after all reflect what we get from him when asked to support any argument or accusation.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" Tacitus
Scuba - works for me!
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 17:20 ET by Radical1979Scuba - works for me! Crickets it is.
trollie5, Jer, theriot? I called BS
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 20:45 ET by ToneyukiI am still waiting for an answer.
The shoebomber qualifies as an attempted terrorist attack during the Bush admin. but the flight originated in another country. Are we responsible for security in every international airport with flights to the US?
Point in fact 1) When a terrorist attack happened under Clinton, he didn't change policy too much and go after the terrorists. We were attacked several more times.
Point in fact 2) When 9-11 happened, the Bush admin, changed policy and increased security, went after terrorist, interrogated terrorist, stopped terrorist attacks on American soil.
Point in fact 3) When the Fort hood terrorist attack happened, The Commander in chief gave a SHOUT OUT and talked to the public for 2 minutes before saying something.
Point in fact 4) When the underwear bomber terrorist attack happened, Pelosi said, "the system worked" WTF. And it took several days for the President to talk about it and what he felt should be done.
"Relativity applies to physics, not ethics" Albert Einstein
I left the Republican party because the Republic party went to the LEFT of me.
toneyuki...
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 22:09 ET by JerThe shoebomber qualifies as an attempted terrorist attack during the Bush admin. but the flight originated in another country. Are we responsible for security in every international airport with flights to the US?
Yes and no. We can't send armed personnel to patrol the corridors, counters, and gates at foreign airports without the authorization of the host country. But the TSA can enact and enforce security measures at those same overseas facilities. And the US airlines could have been required--and still can be compelled--to take more responsibilty for their own security at passenger checkpoints, etc. wherever located.
Point in fact 1) When a terrorist attack happened under Clinton, he didn't change policy too much and go after the terrorists. We were attacked several more times.
To which attack are you referring? Clinton was slow in recognizing the terrorist threat during his early years in office. But later, particularly during the entirety of his second term, he was very focused on terrorism. In fact, it was the GOP Congress which hampered the passage of anti-terrorist legislation such as the administration's efforts to facilitate the tracking of terrorist funding. Clinton still made errors in judgment during his second term re. terrorism, but even Reagan administration officials have given him high marks overall.
Point in fact 2) When 9-11 happened, the Bush admin, changed policy and increased security, went after terrorist, interrogated terrorist, stopped terrorist attacks on American soil.
The Bush administration was regrettably dismissive of Al-Qaeda prior to 9/11. After 9-11, with a couple of qualifications, I believe they deserve high praise. However, the administration did resist the formation of a Department of Homeland Security for about nine months before finally coming around [and then taking credit for its establishment]. But there were attacks on U.S. soil which were deemed terrorist in nature--besides the shoebomber case. But it depends somewhat on the parameters. I noticed well99 included Oklahoma City as a terrorist attack on US soil.
Point in fact 3) When the Fort hood terrorist attack happened, The Commander in chief gave a SHOUT OUT and talked to the public for 2 minutes before saying something.
The shout out was unprofessional, but otherwise Obama made a strong and appropriate statement condemning the attack and expressing sympathy and condolences for the victims and their families.
Point in fact 4) When the underwear bomber terrorist attack happened, Pelosi said, "the system worked" WTF. And it took several days for the President to talk about it and what he felt should be done.
I think it was Janet Napolitano who made the ill-advised remark. The President did make a formal statement regarding the incident within just a few days, unlike his predecessor after the shoebomber incident who didn't say a word for almost a week and then only made a brief comment about it in response to a reporter's question at a Crawford TX news conference.
Jer
Jer
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 22:43 ET by well99"I noticed well99 included Oklahoma City as a terrorist attack on US soil."
I not sure but I think it was a terrorist attack on US soil.To be truthful I blame all presidents and parties for the attacks due to political bs.From Carter till now.The msm media has their hand dipped in the blood of the victims of terrorist acts as much as politicians.
Just a note.This is what I posted under the list.
" I may be wrong but I do believe their was terrorist acts during Clinton."
Jer spin it some more
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 23:40 ET by ToneyukiThe original BS was trollie5 statements about terrorist attacks on US soil/ in the world.
I don't necessarily agree with a lot of policies that Bush enacted in the name of defence, but the fact remains that we were never attacked on US soil after 9-11.
Sorry for saying Pelosi, you're correct, it was Napolitano.
Still waiting for 05 to correct his BS
"Relativity applies to physics, not ethics" Albert Einstein
I left the Republican party because the Republic party went to the LEFT of me.
toneyuki...
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 23:55 ET by JerExactly how did I "spin" it toney? Have you considered the fact that your post which I addressed was spun in several respects.
Your request for a response bordered on a taunt. I made an effort to give a pretty balanced assessment, and addressed each and every point...I daresay in a manner somewhat more balanced than yours.
The headline you chose..."Jer spin it some more" leads me to believe you are more interested in taking ideological potshots rather than engaging in productive dialogue. So, I'll respectfully bow out and you may carry on the slugfest with someone else.
Jer
Jer
Sat, 03/13/2010 - 00:01 ET by ToneyukiIn your response you also claimed there were attacks on US soil after 9-11.
That goes back to my original claim of BS.
What terrorist attacks happened after 9-11? Anthrax? anything else?
"Relativity applies to physics, not ethics" Albert Einstein
I left the Republican party because the Republic party went to the LEFT of me.
balboa
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 14:56 ET by well99Remind you of Jon Steward and him always bringing up Madrid,London attacks against Bush?Seem to be a lot of qualifiers to what does or doesn't count.H/T balboa
I don't remember Stewart
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 15:06 ET by balboaI don't remember Stewart putting a lot of qualifiers on those attacks.
balboa
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 17:31 ET by well99You didnt see the Lynn Cheney interview?
well99
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 20:55 ET by balboaI'm sure I did, but I don't remember the particulars. I bet I can go find it onlien.
balboa
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 22:44 ET by well99You should be able to.One of his shows I actually watched.
Negative, Scuba...
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 14:29 ET by JerThey move in unison, in or out. I considered your point about the level of operation before posting, and I think it's a legitimate issue.
But it stays in for related reasons: The proximity to 9/11 should have made hyper-vigilance an operative reality. The smoke was still rising from the rubble of the WTC as a vivid reminder of the barbarity of the attacks. The nation was on a war footing.
FOTB stays in Obama's column, but the shoebomber must also remain in Bush's.
Jer
edited to add Scuba's name for the sake of clarity
Dunno Jer, what security
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 15:59 ET by Scuba DudeDunno Jer, what security measures were implemented to prevent the type of act the shoe bomber was attempting?
If I remember correctly all that they started to do was banning a lot of items from being brought into the cabin of the airplane. And how many bomb detecting machines were readily available?
3 months had barely passed when he made the attempt. Was the TSA up and running? Did they have any guidelines? Did they have any screeners trained and in place? Also. do not forget that he came from a flight originating from outside of the United States where the 09/11 murders were all on flights that began in the US. Do you not think we would be attempting to get our own airports in shape?
So it looks like the shoebomber should not be in the Bush column where the FOTB wholly belongs to Obama.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" Tacitus
Where did the
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 14:14 ET by UpNorthflight originate, Jer? And, if it originated overseas, how much control did the U.S. exercise over those bound for the U.S., if any?
And was the TSA up and running when Reid boarded that flight?
I little note, that
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 20:22 ET by UpNorthyou didn't list all of the terrorist attacks, Stevie. Other than 9-11, that is. I'll even go along with the anthrax attack, though many feel it was a twisted individual, settling alleged scores. The ones that happened in the U.S. should be easy to come up with?
Upnorth I don't think we're
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 20:38 ET by Radical1979Upnorth I don't think we're going to get an answer from Stevie on this one. He does love to hear himself type though.
Very true,
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 20:48 ET by UpNorthRad, but I'm going to poke him over on the Michael Moore thread. Good timing on your post though, beat me by seconds.
Haha, you can spin the issue
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 20:51 ET by steve05Haha, you can spin the issue all day, it doesn't change that this guy was referring to foreign attacks under clinton and ignored all the similar attacks under bush.
Why? because he's a partisan hypocrite that lives in his own world.
So I take it you too believe that no terrorist attacks took place against our interests or allies under bush? do you live in a cave?
Where, exactly, did
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 20:56 ET by Radical1979Where, exactly, did Theissen refer to foreign attacks?
The cave comment is juvenile.
The cave comment is juvenile.
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 00:30 ET by ckc1227What a coincidence, so is Steve.
Nope, that would be
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 20:58 ET by UpNorthyou, down there in mom and dad's cave. You flip and flop whenever you lose track of your Kos talking points. Oh, and for your info, an attack on a US flagged warship is an attack on the US, an attack on an American embassy is an attack on the US.
Meanwhile, still waiting for your list of terrorist attacks in the US under GWB.
Naturally...
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 22:13 ET by NC CopSteve hasn't read a page of the book, but dismisses it as a "partisan hypocrite".
I'm currently reading this book and its emphasis is on interrogation techniques and how the radical left has demonized them, yet completely fails to acknowledge that they have stopped many plots and saved many lives.
Obama thought declassifying thousands of documents would keep the focus on Bush and off of his failing administration and all it did was open up the door for Thiessen to write the book. Steve if you actaully read the book you will see ALL of his points are footnoted and taken from the documents or straight from the mouths of the people he interviewed. A democrat who was part of an investigation into the techniques refused to comment when asked. No doubt he didn't want to go on record as saying "BUSH WAS RIGHT!"
I'm reading the book right now. It is an excellent book and...
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 21:07 ET by jawebster1is not "a bunch of garbage" as you say. I'm going to take a wild guess right here and say I bet you are a Liberal who thinks Eric Holder is a wonderful Attorney General. Having said that, I'm disappointed Conservatives feel compelled to go on such shows as this one. Jim Webster
Cheap setups…
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 21:08 ET by JPR1These “interviews” by Stewart are little more than choreographed cheap shots.
Days in advance Stewart and his staff rough script the whole damn thing, very likely right down to the non-verbal/body language assaults. The guest ends up looking like a punching clown.
“Nice to have you here dumb sh!t. Have a seat and shut up while I show everyone you’re a liar.”
Three seconds to respond to a question; three milliseconds for the audience to process the response, then interrupt with snark or a tangential point. Repeat as needed until commercial break.
Any conservative participating should sit down with a smirk on their face and an old fashioned stopwatch in hand.
For anyone not intimately familiar with the topic and actually hoping to learn something it’s a waste of time. (I’d love to see a post program survey of audience members, just a little “pop-quiz” to gauge the collective IQ.)
Some get the better of Stewart
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 22:16 ET by exLibI saw tony blair on the Daily Show and I thought Blair mopped the floor with him and did it with a gentleman-like flair.
Blair made Stewart look like a complete idiot as Stewart just regurgitated left-wing talking points repeated some many times that many think they are fact, but blair knocked 'em down, one-by-one. Even that Bush is a dope. He even said Bush was really intelligent and a good person.
I do agree though that most of the time Stewart has a script and just goes for broke.
Stewart uses a tried a true liberal debating trick which is to change the subject/topic the minute you sense the other person is making a good point and about to demolish your argument.
I thought that Thiessen made
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 22:47 ET by balboaI thought that Thiessen made his points during the show. Obviously he get to make more in the online version, but it wasn't like he didn't get _anything_ across.
I've seen Theissen on a few
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 00:19 ET by killa37I've seen Theissen on a few other venues.....including one where some whack-job lib ( I don't know his name......he's some self-important 'commentator') was going apoplectic about the whole subject.........and Theissen has seemed to handle himself pretty well......jeez........he goes on these moronic shows.....he's GOT to know that they will try to ridicule him and discredit him!!!
As for 'selective worlds'.........I don't think that Jon Stewart has a whole lot of wiggle room to talk..........what does HE do??? And, personally, I don't think he's very funny OR particulary smart....that's probably why he's so popular with libs!!!!!
"Selective worlds" wasn't a
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 00:31 ET by balboa"Selective worlds" wasn't a reference to one's career.
I'd say that with these
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 00:53 ET by killa37I'd say that with these guys..........their careers AND their worlds are VERY interlaced...........that was all I was getting at. Stewart, Maher, Olbermann, etc.etc..........live in as much of any insular worlds - if not more - than anybody else...............
As for 'selective
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 12:09 ET by balboaAs for 'selective worlds'.........I don't think that Jon Stewart has a whole lot of wiggle room to talk..........what does HE do???
When Stewart said "selective worlds," he was referring to how Thiessen chose to define what makes us safe and what doesn't, and the absolute nature of Thiessen's view. Not what Thiessen does for a living.
(conservatives) goes on
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 07:25 ET by Jack BauerI agree. And for what?
As I keep pointing out, last time I checked (2009) The Daily Show audience was 1.3 million. And that was when Obama cultism was in full swing in the media.
That means 99.3% of the population DON'T watch this show.
And you think those that do watch actually buy books, except those which have the words 'Harry Potter' in the title?
I don't think so, to listen to their yahoo baying.
But buying BONGS? Now your talking.
I laffed at him
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 11:42 ET by StarAZI stopped watching The Daily Show at the time of the strike and never returned. But I did think he was funny sometimes--laugh out loud funny. But he has writers--it isn't him all the way--and when he is on his own, as in the Factor interview, he is not as quick and amusing.
Jeez
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 11:44 ET by StarAZI took a long time to spit out the above. I need writers. Wah!
Thiessen was allowed to make his points
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 14:51 ET by chronicWatch the whole interview or even the first part and it is quite clear that Stewart's courtesy to Thiessen declines. It is frustrating to watch Thiessen cry like a baby at the end about being talked over when he was the one doing it and several times (in beginning) Stewart stops to allow Thiessen to continue.
If Stewart didn't take control of the interview like he did, Thiessen would have kept on all his talking points. Stewart, at least listened to what Thiessen was saying and responded. Several times Thiessen tries to dodge around questions.
The main reason Stewart comes out on top is because he says that he acknowledges the validity of the other sides argument but disagrees with it. Thiessen argues his opinion as fact and really hurts any arguments he has.
And if that was being rude to a guest, than what does Fixed News do to people they disagree, cut thier mics.
Isn't the point of doing an
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 14:56 ET by Radical1979Isn't the point of doing an interview to hear what the guest has to say? Speaking of cutting people's mic's off, that was Dylan Ratigan at MSNBC.
chronic stupidity
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 15:20 ET by MrShyWe have a newbie here... and he's trying to coin a fresh one, "Fixed News". Wonderful, chronic, wonderful. Love it!!
Okay, let's look at some of his stupidity:
"Stewart, at least listened to what Thiessen was saying and responded."
At least listened? At least an interviewer listened to a guest? So we award Jon Boy Stewart a medal for.... doing what he's supposed to do when asking questions of an interviewee? He actually went out of his way... and listened??
"The main reason Stewart comes out on top is because he says that he acknowledges the validity of the other sides argument but disagrees with it. Thiessen argues his opinion as fact and really hurts any arguments he has."
And Jon's opinion? He's way more humble about it? Yeeeeeaaah..... okay. Also, again, Jon interviews guests. What the heck is HE doing with opinions that must be equally as challenging and foisted on his listeners as the opinions and thoughts/ideas of his guests?
Jon has every night, during all the other segments, to make all his glorious left-leaning, mock-right-wingers/FOX jokes. When, for a short amount of time, he's actually forced to step out of his liberal progressive comfort-zone bubble, the least he can do is extend a patient, listening, NON-interjecting ear to someone trying to make their case/argument from the opposing side.
Must we keep reminding all you impressionable, wet-behind-the-ears Stewart lap-dog leftists that, when he has someone on who actually worked in politics and behind the scenes, he himself is just a "comedian" who has his own doofy political views? Do you give Thiessen no rope at all? Do you not consider that he might be more of an expert on the topic at hand, having been Bush's speechwriter, than some boob-tube, knee-jerk NY liberal comedian?
No, apparently not. You're just blinded by your adoration for funny, ha-ha, smug Jon.
I'm not looking for anyone's pity. - Jer
There have been studies. - Jer
Shy - that Fixed News joke,
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 15:20 ET by Radical1979Shy - that Fixed News joke, oh that was a good one. Never heard that before.
He probably watched a dvr'd episode of Countdown before posting and couldn't wait to use that one.
Rad79
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 15:27 ET by MrShyHe/she had me for most of the post... Like, okay, clearly a liberal here, but at least they're not reverting to some overt talking point or libturd joke.
And then, viola!! "Fixed News"...... snort. :p
I'm not looking for anyone's pity. - Jer
There have been studies. - Jer
Did you watch the interview?
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 15:50 ET by chronicIt's funny how when Stewart gets serious in an interview everyone's quick to point out he's just a comedian(say it like it's a disease). If Stewart jokes about a serious topic then he's being smug, just like how Twain was so smug about slavery.
I don't judge people by credentials but what argument they are making:
Do you not consider that he might be more of an expert on the topic at hand, having been Bush's speechwriter, than some boob-tube, knee-jerk NY liberal comedian?
So basing the debate on what each person said, Stewart mopped the stage with Thiessen because Stewart countered what Thiessen was saying. Thiessen had his talking points down but like Stewart pointed out it's just like climate change and believing your opinion contrary to scientific data.
chronic
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 17:59 ET by MrShyI watched all three extended parts (3 clips) available online. Beginning to end. Did you? Or did you catch just the broadcast portion? (Part 1)?
If you only caught the first part that was on TV, well, then, it's even MORE baffling that you think "Stewart mopped the stage with Thiessen." Thiessen was patiently reiterating and/or making a new argument with every time Jon impatiently jumped in. Did you see the second half of that segment? Jon was foolishly yapping away over Thiessen like a 10-year old. No, correction, he's normally like a 10-year old, and he was reduced to, about, a 7-year old.
Jon was losing it so much in the final minute, when Thiessen was politely telling Jon, "if you'll only let me finish a point", Stewart sort of took a deep breath and then admitted he was cutting him off and talking too much... at which point, he told his viewers he'd try to interrupt less after the commercial break, but that this extended part would only be available online. It was a pretty uncomfortable scene.
Yes, Thiessen was the adult, Jon the impulsive, jumping-up-and-down, undisciplined child.
I'm not looking for anyone's pity. - Jer
There have been studies. - Jer
Obviously childish is your
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 18:00 ET by balboaObviously childish is your take, but I disagree. Any time you feel your opponent is trying to couch an argument using certain ideas, and you feel that those ideas are wrong, you're going to step in and not let your opponent assert something as fact that you don't believe to be true.
bal
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 18:11 ET by MrShyWatch it. All of it. All three segments, but definitely the first.
If you think Jon had the best of him, well, whatever.... you'll think that regardless, I imagine. The one interrupting a lot? Jon. The one getting emotional with every point/topic brought up? Jon. Who seemed to keep lunging forward, nervous and twitchy, overly eager to get the next word in? Jon, again.
And he's supposed to be the cool interviewer, in control, on his own show.
Frankly, it was hard to watch... the Jon part of it, that is.
I'm not looking for anyone's pity. - Jer
There have been studies. - Jer
I don't think Jon "got the
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 18:12 ET by balboaI don't think Jon "got the better" of him. I think Jon hurt his own side of the argument as much as helped it.
And who says the interviewer has to be "in control," (as if he was out of of control). It's an emotional subject that he's passionate about. You guys love to bring up British Parliament and how they call each other out, why does Stewart have to be the Ice King?
And I have watched all three parts.
Just wow!!
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 21:19 ET by UpNorthHe doesn't "judge people by credentials", but it's like "Stewart pointed out it's just like climate change and believing your opinion contrary to scientific data"? Even when the scientific date is, at best, questionable, and more than likely skewed to insure the tap doesn't get turned off for the warmers. Sure sounds like he's judging folks by their credentials.
Selective world? That's
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 01:35 ET by mattmSelective world? That's rich, coming from a guy who switches from comedian to "serious" commentator whenever it suits him.
His toggle switch
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 11:41 ET by StarAZHe does flip back and forth--I had the same reaction.
Stewart was burned by John Yoo
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 08:03 ET by DaChewIf you're wondering why Stewart decided to lecture Thiessen rather than conduct an actual interview, the reason is, John Yoo. A while back Stewart was absolutely owned by John Yoo. He actually apologised to his audience for not treating Yoo exactly as you see him treating Thiessen here. Stewart adopted this interruptive, lecturing style because he knew he couldn't keep up with Theissen if he allowed him to actually make any of his points. That was the mistake he made with Yoo - he didn't use the time to lecture Yoo and didn't interrupt him every time Yoo tried to make a point.
Yyyeah, not exactly true,
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 12:08 ET by balboaYyyeah, not exactly true, but if it works for you...
Yyyyyeah, no specifics what
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 13:03 ET by DaChewYyyyyeah, no specifics about what isn't "exactly true", just a blanket statement, but if ad hominems work for you...
If you're wondering why
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 13:59 ET by balboaIf you're wondering why Stewart decided to lecture Thiessen rather than conduct an actual interview, the reason is, John Yoo. A while back Stewart was absolutely owned by John Yoo.
"Owned" is subjective. Yoo did a great job of clearly articulating his side of the argument.
He actually apologised to his audience for not treating Yoo exactly as you see him treating Thiessen here.
Hardly. He made fun of the situation, said about Yoo, "He got me, but I'll bounce back." Hardly an apology.
Stewart adopted this interruptive, lecturing style because he knew he couldn't keep up with Theissen if he allowed him to actually make any of his points.
Stewart disagreed with basic statements in Thiessen's points, which made it hard to let Thiessen continue.
That was the mistake he made with Yoo - he didn't use the time to lecture Yoo and didn't interrupt him every time Yoo tried to make a point.
Because Yoo's arguments were much more clear, much more concise, and didn't include a lot of subjectivity.
"Owned" is subjective. Yoo
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 17:29 ET by DaChew"Owned" is subjective. Yoo did a great job of clearly articulating his side of the argument.
You be sure to explain that to The Atlantic: http://atlanticwire.theatlantic.com/opinions/view/opinion/Happy-Hour-Vid-Jon-Stewart-Admits-He-Screwed-Up-with-Yoo-2178
Hardly. He made fun of the situation, said about Yoo, "He got me, but I'll bounce back." Hardly an apology.
You be sure to explain that to Slate: http://www.slate.com/id/2241742/entry/2104307/
Stewart disagreed with basic statements in Thiessen's points, which made it hard to let Thiessen continue.
Yes, that's called "interrupting", exactly what I said Stewart did.
Because Yoo's arguments were much more clear, much more concise, and didn't include a lot of subjectivity.
Because Stewart made sure that Theissen wasn't actually able to make any points by constantly interrupting and lecturing him. What Theissen lacked was Yoo's experience at dealing with kids: "I've spent my whole career learning to settle down unruly college students who have not done the reading."
Just because The Atlantic
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 17:37 ET by balboaJust because The Atlantic and the Slate say this, doesn't mean it's true.
This would probably be the first time you ever agreed with the characterization of something in either publication.
It wasn't an apology where Stewart appeared with his tail between his legs. It was a goof, CLEARLY.
Yyyyyeaah. Well, you're all
Sat, 03/13/2010 - 15:59 ET by DaChewYyyyyeaah. Well, you're all alone with those little dreams then, aren't you?
Probably not.
Sat, 03/13/2010 - 18:00 ET by balboaProbably not.
You will let us know when
Sun, 03/14/2010 - 08:29 ET by DaChewYou will let us know when you find anyone who agrees with you then? Wouldn't want to live all alone in a "selective world" now would you?
What's the matter, can't take a joke---
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 13:13 ET by Roscoe MendagoOh, and Stewart doesn't live in a rarefied atmosphere, you know, "Living in a selective world" that allows him to attack the people he doesn't agree with and proclaim, "It was just a joke."
I caught part of Stewart's show, and as you can tell from the
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 18:04 ET by Rush Fantranscript, Stewart continuously interrupted Marc Thiessen. It's a common technique when you don't want your guest to show the audience that they make a better argument than you do. Ask anyone whom Chris Matthews or Bill O’Reilly has interviewed.
As I watched the interview I was hoping that Thiessen would use the same tough approach on Stewart that he did when he was interviewed by Christiane Amanpour. Sadly, he didn't get that opportunity.
---------------------------------------------------------
“a petty little man with the instinct of a Chicago thug” ~ Rush Limbaugh describing Barack Obama
It's a common technique when
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 18:09 ET by balboaIt's a common technique when you don't want your guest to show the audience that they make a better argument than you do.
Yeah, and that's ONLY why people ever do it...