Jon Stewart, N.Y. Times Reporter Joked About How Bush Team Resembled Drunken Bar Bullies

Photo of Tim Graham.
  • Bookmark and Share

David Sanger, chief Washington correspondent of the New York Times, appeared on The Daily Show Wednesday night to plug his new book decrying the Iraq war and offering foreign-policy advice to the new administration. Host Jon Stewart compared the Bush administration to a group of drunken bar bullies who were spoiling for a fight every night. Sanger joked that designation clearly fit Dick Cheney. Stewart asked Sanger how he prioritized his nightmare scenarios for President Obama:

SANGER: Well, the Iranians are building nuclear weapons because we were off in Iraq. The North Koreans went out and built six or seven nuclear weapons right at the time that we were off in Iraq. Afghanistan, obviously a big problem. And the more people I interviewed, the more I discovered that as they came in to go deal with the Taliban, they discovered all our forces were off in Iraq. There’s a story out here.

STEWART: There's a theme in your book here. There's a thread in here. Basically you refer to Iraq as quote-unquote "the distraction."

SANGER: That's right.

STEWART: Is that the whole story of how this has all sort of, exploded on us?

SANGER: No, it's not. And Iraq is not the only reason we would have an Iranian regime that we've got troubles with. We've had trouble with North Korea since early 1950s. So Iraq was simply the moment in which the entire top tier of the U.S. government thought they were heading into a problem they could solve in six months or a year, and it ended up consuming the rest of the Bush term. And the result was that others exploited the moment. And it wasn't just the Iranians and the North Koreans and so forth. The Chinese were huge winners of the Iraq war. Remember, when George Bush came in, many around him wanted to go confront China and contain it.

STEWART: Didn't many around him want to go confront everybody? I mean, literally it felt like these are just like a bunch of drunken frat... it reminds me of a bar I used to work at where this one group of guys would come in and every night you'd just be like "I wonder who they're going to fight."

SANGER: Was Cheney at your bar? (Laughter) The first term was very different than the second. In the first term, they so focused on many of these enemies because they thought that if they just squeezed the North Koreans, if they squeezed the Iranians they would give up their arms and walk away. And that was some of the theory of the Iraq war. You go back, and as I interviewed people who sat in the meetings as they planned to go into Iraq, they thought that the remaining powers would say "look what happened to Saddam Hussein, we're not going to let that happen to us."

STEWART: That thought it was a head on a pike war. They literally thought they were going to go in there, put his head on a pike and even was going to be like [adopting low voice] "your power is immeasurable." You know? And they'd all back away. And the opposite happened. It was almost a sin of omission.

Neither joker in this exchange discussed Libyan dictator Moammar Qaddafi, who did respond that way to Saddam’s demise.

The problem with the Sanger scenario is what he counsels did not work -- attempting diplomatic processes with Iran and North Korea -- is exactly what a President Gore would have done with Iraq over the last eight years. Isn't it possible that Gore would have been too distracted by crusading to rid the world of carbon dioxide to notice nuclearization attempts in these countries?

They never seem to consider or discuss how the world would have been better off with Saddam Hussein still in power and trying to acquire his own nukes. But liberal reporters wouldn't grade that as a failure, as long as a president they supported (at the office and the voting booth) was in charge.

—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

That "joker" from da times............

should go have an up close look at the situation in the Middle-East. Maybe he would end up like Daniel Pearl, God rest his soul.

   Diplomacy never solves

   Diplomacy never solves any conflict without a real threat of force to back it up. Why should it?  Are the Mullahs going to give up their quest fo nuclear capability simply because Hillary Clinton told them to stop?

Bye bye Miss American Pie

Ah so we get a peek behind the LEFTY LIB excuse machine. Now it will
be Bush's fault that Iran and NKorean and whomever else grew un deterred as problems because of Iraq.

So Obama and the LEFTY LIBS will be able to say, "It's too late to do
something drastic, they did all this under Bush and we can't do anything
drastic so we are going to have to use diplomacy and try to minimize its
growth not reverse its threat...why we can't reverse its threat...that would mean the use of force...we can't do that...we can't initiate force we can only continue what Bush has done and blame him".

A long, long time ago...
I can still remember
How that freedom used to make me smile.
And I knew if I had my chance
That I could make those people dance
And, maybe, they’d have freedom for a while.

But Mr. Murtha made me shiver
With every victory I’d deliver.
Bad news on his doorstep;
Was all he would accept..

I cant remember if I cried
When I read about the widowed bride,
But something touched me deep inside
The day our freedom died.

So bye-bye, miss american pie.
Drove my chevy to the levee,
But the levee was dry.
And them good old boys were drinkin BDS and rye
Singin, cuz of Bush we all must die
It's all his fault please believe my lie

Reality is the good friend of the strong and perception is the cruel
master of the weak.

Next Please!

Pretty much. [Sarcasm

Pretty much.

[Sarcasm on] 

Lets see, the recession that became official one month into his presidency. Well that was Bush's fault. 9/11 where the planning and training happened under Clinton and wasn't detected by the legacy FBI/CIA Bush got from Billy. Again obviously Bush's fault. The Levees in NO and Minn Bridge both being built wrong years ago. Again obviously that's Bush's fault. So obviously anything bad in Barry's presidency that's got to be Bush's fault too. Hell, I bet the Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis, and Iranian Hostage Crisis all must be his fault too.

[Sarcasm off]

i actually watched this show.

normally, i don't watch john stewart. but in this case it was simply to see how weak the show was without  bush to bash. after all, better not be too strident in your criticism of pres."o".  that will make you racist and possibly earn you a trip to a re-education camp. after all why do you think they're emptying gitmo....

Another

Another non story made up to have some faux nes to talk about.

How about getting on PBO for telling Republicans who to listen to? Now there is a current story with possibilities for mockery etc.. I wonder how long it will take these jokers to find real material from current events to work with?

Lacks Logic

Sanger says:

SANGER: Well, the Iranians are building nuclear weapons because we were off in Iraq. The North Koreans went out and built six or seven nuclear weapons right at the time that we were off in Iraq. Afghanistan, obviously a big problem. And the more people I interviewed, the more I discovered that as they came in to go deal with the Taliban, they discovered all our forces were off in Iraq. There’s a story out here.

One can argue persusively that:

  1. The Iranians and North Koreans are building nuclear weapons because they believe it is in their own self interest. Their actions predated anything the Bush Administration did
  2. Iran faces are more dangerous strategic situation now, because the United States can effectively deploy forces from, Turkey, Iraq and Afghanistan to counter Iran.
  3. If Saddam was left in power, he too could be developing nuclear weapons and Iran and Iraq could be locked in an anti-American nuclear arms race.
  4. The United States military can carry out more than one task at a time. More troops in Afghanistan may not lead to better results. The effective application of force is what works, not numbers.

The quote above from Sanger leads one to conclude that his book is nothing more than an emotional diatribe against President Bush.

I think we see a theme here, do we not?

While none on the left would be foolish enough to argue that all the problems of the world, or at least that part of the world, are directly attributible to GWB's invasion of Iraq.  That theory is easily disproveable. 

But it's much more of a nuanced approach (which they dearly love, in terms of cerebral discourse) to say that since GWB invaded Iraq (of course, lost in that chant is the fact that congress and the American public at large were behind the effort at the outset when GWB stated at his SOTUA that the war on terror would outlast his terms in office), everything else in the world got much worse as a direct result.  That point could be debated for hours.  As we know, the left has no idea how a debate is won, merely spouting idiotic points and theories is seen as winning a debate.  And as long as the debate is prolonged by these means, their side is therfore validated.

Anyway, that will be BDS, part II; "sure Obama has problems and is not making progress in the rest of the world, but it's because Bush had us in Iraq for so long, and everything got worse...now the Enlightened One has to clean it up, and if he fails, it's Bush's fault"

Lost in Translation

It is fascinating how all those Democrats's in Congress who signed off on the Iraq invasion are given a complete pass by a media more intent on ginning up anti-Bush hatred than accuracy.

this jackass is a little

this jackass is a little late to the Bash-Bush-Book movement

SANGER: Well, the Iranians

SANGER: Well, the Iranians are building nuclear weapons because we were
off in Iraq. The North Koreans went out and built six or seven nuclear
weapons right at the time that we were off in Iraq. Afghanistan,
obviously a big problem. And the more people I interviewed, the more I
discovered that as they came in to go deal with the Taliban, they
discovered all our forces were off in Iraq. There’s a story out here.

Oh, please.

The Iranians and North Koreans didn't give a flying fig what we were doing in Iraq.  They paid zero attention to what the US Presidents thought long before we went into Iraq. (In fact North Korea started during the Clinton administration....was that because he was pre-occupied in Bosnia?)

Will Sanger soon complain that all these places are going to hell in a handbasket because Obama is focused on the economy?  

 

 

Sanger can't back up his statements with facts.

He can make them of course but it is only empty hyperbole. 

"SANGER: Well, the Iranians are building nuclear weapons because we were
off in Iraq. The North Koreans went out and built six or seven nuclear
weapons right at the time that we were off in Iraq."

It is very easy to dig up how Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid made it perfectly clear that the Pre.Bush had better not dare to confront Iran militarily in any way unless they approve it.

In regards to N.Korea maybe Sanger forgets all the wonderful diplomacy that yielded so many positive results.There were six party talks,four party talks,bi-lateral talks and blah bluh blub bluh blah on N.Korea.

Sanger is just spewing cocktail partyforeign policy.He like many liberals and lefties believe that all we need to do is "just reach out " to these despotic regimes and reassure them that we mean them no harm and all will be well.

History has showed that time and time again diplomacy has NEVER worked in situation where one side is determined not to back down.

 

Because with a name like Obama... you know it has to be good.

What he's missing

what he's missing is the fact that our enemies either learned or had their suspicions confirmed:

 1 - Any conflict that is begun with a Republican in office will be met with fierce opposition from the left

2- Democrat leaders will go out in public and either not back their President in the war, or worse yet, take the enemies side in the conflict.

3 - The media will become the de-facto arm of the opposition.

Clearly the war in Iraq was won early on, yet when our forces began suffering casualties and the terrorists began a guerilla war the Democrats together with the media gave aid and comfort to our enemies by assasinating the POTUS' character in public and in Jimmy Carter's case, on foreign soil.  

The media then began a campaign of non-stop negative reporting from Iraq which played directly into the enemies hands, giving the terrorist a public forum to  to weaken the public's resolve.  The media also gave up secret information that helped the enemy and hurt the us.  Their final assist was to the Democrats by propogating the well repeated, but never proven, assertion that the President lied to get us into war, the Republicans were a corrupt party through and through, and never held any Democrats accountable for their votes or decisions or corruption.

Therefore, Korea and Iran both KNOW that the Democrats and the Media will provide them with suitable cover.   Also, any enemy of the US knows that if they can bog down US forces in any way, shape or form, they can win the PR battle and defeat a US that is more concerned with how it looks to the world than whether it does the right thing in protecting it's people. 

Limbaugh mentioned something

I was listening to Limbaugh, the other day, and he mentioned a memo from Carville talking about President Bush saying that Democrats better find a way to discredit him if they want to win elections.  In looking back at what's happened, these past 8 years,  doesn't anyone feel something growling inside them about how un-American that sounds?  He didn't say you'd better come up with alternative ideas, he didn't say you'd better be a good, loyal opposition, he said "discredit" the President.

You can't accomplish something like that without the assistance of the media.  Democrats could cry "culture of corruption" all they wanted but; if the press didn't play along, what would it mean? 

Now that President Bush is in Texas, it appears that the Democrats want to put the final nail in the coffin so that people will no longer trust the Republicans.  The more they can make President Bush look like a failure, and those that supported him look worse, the Democrats win.  Once again, this can't be accomplished without support from the media.  Does anyone wonder why Democrats are so anxious to re-instate the fairness doctrine?

Election 2008-God's way of showing us that elections count.  

Stewart et al

It will be amusing to watch the liberal jokewriters for guys like Leno, Letterman, Stewart and the rest scramble to come up with new jokes for their diva bosses. For eight years they have had the Bush-is-dumb-doesn't-read-books lines to recycle endlessly. Now that he's gone and Obammy is for the time being untouchable, what to do?

PS Jay Lame-o had an exit interview with a fake President Bush this week, so he's still working the old material.

PPS Open season on the hapless Joe Biden. He is going to be Quaylized.

I saw that on Leno the other night

I watch Leno sometimes, usually on Monday nights when he does 'Headlines'. When I saw the beginning of his lame fake interview with his lame fake Bush lookalike, I actually yelled "Come on Jay, let it go already!" at my TV and turned it off to go to bed.

I've said it once, I'll say it again: Jon Stewart is a useful idiot.

Armchair Quarterbacking

What these two men don't know about geo-politics, military capability and the war on terror could fill volumes. The lack of understanding, arrogance, the revisionist history and simplistic approach are simply appalling.

Bush Team Resembled Drunken Bar Bullies

Isn't it enlightning to hear these sissified metro-sexuals constantly complain about "BULLIES

 They're all just scared of their shadows,  idiots all.

 

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

out of ammo

Many comments above about the obvious lack of ammo that the liberal media is suffering. I remember when Nixon left, the National Lampoon Radio Hour went OFF THE AIR because... as the man said it himself... "You won't have Richard Nixon to kick around any more."  Wonder what he would say if he saw the bashing Bush has taken for 8 years. We have made jokes about it.. but the honest to goodness truth is that I don't think they can maintain the liberal HATE without Bush in office. Unless they bring back Orwell's 1984 prediction, and have all of Hollywood gather in front of their monitors twice a day and chant HATE! HATE! HATE until pictures of O'Buckwheat come on and they can gush again.  O'Buckwheat say... because...I WON"

I will NEVER forget that quote