What's up with Jon Stewart?

He sounds more and more like he's going over to the dark side. He spent almost the entire show giving Bush credit for what happened in Lebanon. He never even bothered to question why everyone was holding the same flag, which to me is the greatest sign that America has something to do with this.

I won't be watching if when I tune in I'll have to listen to more propaganda.

Stewart was fine. Just doing his job.

LOL, you say it as if its a bad thing. Just because the CIA is behind it, doesn't mean its not positive.

They just offed a Judge in Iraq.
The Egyptians are just giving window dressing
and we just had a judges parents killed in this country.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Israel and Palestine had their truce broken, Iraq had over 120 killed yesterday, Suddam's judge was killed today.

He's politically moderate. Basically meaning he's willing to give Smirk the benefit of the doubt on occasion. It's his biggest flaw. He's still got the funniest show on television.

The ability to change his mind when new facts comes to light makes him flawed?

Being able to give someone, no matter their political affiliation, credit when credit is due makes him flawed?

Understanding that even if a particular act of good is part of the Devil's plan, it was still a good act makes him flawed?

Fanatics belong in Al Qaeda and the neocon enclaves, not in the party of free thinkers.

& he's also an entertainer.His 'interviews' are adlib chats w/ celebrities & political bigwigs - less than 10 minutes long, most of the time.

Do you think Lebanese political parties are incapable of securing an ample supply of their own nation's flag without the assistance of outsiders?

The Rendon Group's work in Kuwait continued after the war itself had ended. "If any of you either participated in the liberation of Kuwait City ... or if you watched it on television, you would have seen hundreds of Kuwaitis waving small American flags," John Rendon said in his speech to the NSC. "Did you ever stop to wonder how the people of Kuwait City, after being held hostage for seven long and painful months, were able to get hand-held American flags? And for that matter, the flags of other coalition countries? Well, you now know the answer. That was one of my jobs."
http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2001Q4/rendon.html

The inauguration of George W. Bush and the post-9/11 war on terrorism would put the PNAC neoconservatives back in the driver’s seat of U.S. foreign policy. Nine days after the 9/11 attacks, PNAC sent an open letter to President Bush, calling not only for the destruction of Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network, but also to extend the war to Iraq, and to take measures against Iran, Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/how_to_sell_a_war/

Rendon has been complicit in the overthrow of at least one government that we know of. And they are probably behind the fake toppling of the Saddam statue.
Therefore if one looks askance at
the sudden influx of flag-waving crowds within an area where
Rendon is known to be working on behalf of the Pentagon,
one should not be taken to task
any more than than US citizens were
over a certain Brooks Brothers Riot in Florida in 2000.

Those probably would have to be imported, or otherwise contrived by assistance. Scores of thousands here in the U.S. waving Lebanese flags would be similarly interesting, but it is unsurprising Lebanese organizers can supply their own nation's flag to a crowd.

As a point of curiousity, Mr. Decorum, do you think Syria ought to continue in occupation of Lebanon, or that the people of Lebanon have neither reason nor right to want Syrian occupation of their country to cease?

It's not that their incapable but why buy them when you can get them for free. Here are a few morsels to gnaw on as you watch "The Cedar Revolution Inc." unfold.

They will use the same mold as was utilized in Ukraine. the franchised revolution will be engineered by the IMF, NED and other such alphabet soup Neo-con, Neo-Lib NGOers. One of the important players will be:
Ziad Abdelnour, a Lebanese American devoted to the cause of driving Syria from Lebanon, has been involved in a number of neocon-led initiatives on Middle East politics. He is the founder of the U.S. Committee for a Free Lebanon (USCFL), an advocacy group supported by Michael Ledeen, Jeane Kirkpatrick, James Woolsey, Elliot Abrams, Douglas Feith, and Frank Gaffney.

Abdelnour co-produced, with Daniel Pipes and the Middle East Forum, a 2000 report calling for the United States to force Syria from Lebanon and to disarm it of its alleged weapons of mass destruction. The document, titled "Ending Syria's Occupation of Lebanon: The U.S. Role?" argued that "Syrian rule in Lebanon stands in direct opposition to American ideals" and criticized the United States for engaging rather than confronting the regime. Among the documents signers were several soon-to-be Bush administration figures, including Elliott Abrams, Douglas Feith, Michael Rubin, David Wurmser, and Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky. Other signers included Richard Perle, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Michael Ledeen, and Frank Gaffney.

You will see the standard student youth groups with catchy slogan and large funding from various Western Orgs. Their will be the not so spontaneous street protests, as in Ukraine, that even many in the streets will know who coordinated them.

NED has provided Lebanon with a democracy promotion grant so has to push through this agenda as laid out in an AEI report titled "Ending Syria's Occupation of Lebanon: The U.S. Role".

I'll write more on this if you wish, getting tired now. here are a few links the first is from the U.S. Committee for a Free Lebanon:
http://www.freelebanon.org/
Here is the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin
http://www.meib.org/documentfile/040213.htm

And pleasant to receive pay for doing what you intend to do in the first place.

Again, Sir, as a point of curiousity: do you think Syria ought to continue in occupation of Lebanon, or that the Lebanese people have neither reason nor right to wish Syrian occupation of their country to end?

for it may be wanting to fatten you up so as to eat you later.

The point is the psychotic and predictable pattern of behavior by the US State Department and the perpetuation of lies that these "uprisings" are not orchestrated by outside influences such as Open Society, NED,IRI, NDI (whose current chair person is the despicable Madeleine Albright), IMF and various front groups as I mentioned above. The Lebanese people are unimportant to the State Dept. except as pawns. Do you dismiss that these groups and the "democratization" template are not being used in Lebanon at present. I believe all people have right to self determination. That will definitely not happen if events unfold as they did in Ukraine with the US money machine controlling the strings.

My only curiousity in the matter just now relates to the questions asked: do you think Syria should remain in occupation of Lebanon, and do you think the Lebanese people have neither reason nor right to want an end to Syrian occupation of their country?

Although, as you bring up the Ukraine, do you seriously think that the people of that land wish for a close association with Russia?

Also I wouldn't pretend to speak for the people of Ukraine nor consider them to be a homogenous group. I think that the people of Lebanon, Ukraine, Venezuela, Iraq etc. seek dignity and autonomy and deserve nothing less. They will/are get(ting) nothing but misery when caught in the web of these people/ groups I have mentioned above. There is no small body of evidence to support that. If you have some analysis that differs send it over.

Their thrust, and your own position, remains unclear to me in several particulars, that interest me somewhat. You seem to have worked around to an assertion a variety of peoples deserve dignity and autonomy, but it seems that you still want me to oppose a political movement aiming towards an end of Syrian occupation of Lebanon, that looks like it might succeed in that enterprise. The reason you offer is that certain cliques you oppose support the ending of Syrian occupation of Lebanon. You seem to suggest that these cliques are the only reason there is any stirring among the people of Lebanon today against that occupation. Therefore, my questions remain unanswered, it seems to me, for it is not clear to me that you feel the people of Lebanon have reason or right to wish Syrian occupation to end, or that you feel Syrian occupation should end. It certainly seems a fair conclusion that you do not wish it to end through an agency you oppose, and so are content to see it continue rather than to see it ended by such an agency, and it also seems a fair conclusion that you doubt there is much genuine opposition to Syrian occupation in Lebanon, since you seem to feel the current demonstrations against it are an artificial creation wrought by "outside agitators" of some stripe or other.

"A radish may know no Greek, but I do."

All. So I don't know how much cleare I can make that. I didn't ask you to oppose anything. Point to that if I did. The political movement that you are speaking of is influenced heavily by the West and wil not be in the intersts of the majority of Lebanese people I suspect based on the historical patterns. I am not pleased at the concept of a different group and style of occupation which is likely unless there is no outside interference from an entity that doesn't have it's own vicious agenda. Plugging the world into globalization. And no your conclusion that "there is no genuine opposition...' is fallacious and one doesn't exclude the other.

These demonstrations are not as spontaneous as they seem.

You say you do not ask anyone to oppose anything, but you are at great pains to press a claim that the movement a-foot against Syrian occupation of Lebanon is promoted by nefarious people for nefarious ends. That is certainly, at a minimum, supplying people with reasons to oppose that movement, and where would be the point in doing that if you did not wish people to oppose it? The direct statement, "please oppose this" is hardly necessary to identify the thrust of the presentation.

The Syrian occupation is clearly against the interests of a great many, probably a majority, of the people of Lebanon. It exists today; it is not a hypothetical condition that may or may not arise. You seem more agitated by the hypothetical condition that may or may not arise than by the actual condition presently existing. My priorities are generally the opposite: "sufficient unto the day are the troubles thereof," as someone once said; there is no need to borrow further troubles on speculative account from the mists of the future that none can know.

Very few crowds materialize spontaneously, and no doubt there is a good deal of organization behind their appearance. What you would put into question is whether the organization comes from the functioning political parties and other organizations of Lebanese society, by claiming it stems instead from various foreign influences of which you do not approve. Yet there is no room for doubt that the recent assassination greatly stirred the feelings of many Lebanese, and so it is hardly necessary to postulate foreign influence. The people of Lebanon are perfectly capable of acting on their own, just as any people in this world are.

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

US motives in the matter are far from altruistic - the government has its own objectives, aimed at its own profit, and they are probably not in line with those of the people of Lebanon - but it simply does not follow that Syria is right to occupy Lebanon, or that what happened was US-sponsored.

People are capable of acting without imperial approval.

Quite the contrary. People are capable of acting without imperial approval, agreed, but what is happening in Lebanon is happening with lots of imperial influence.

I'm saying and backing it up with evidence that the US and other Western interests are working behind the scenes in Lebanon and Syria to orchestrate a similar feat as they did in Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan etc.
Perhaps my post was fuzzy as it is late.

is here being difficult and adversarial.

I suspected everything you just pointed out, with solid evidence. Some folks here still haven't grasped the idea that, what our government, and more often, the CIA, does is covert, and often illegal.

It's just amazing that, the folks here can think that every thing that comes out of the WH is a lie, but as soon as a the T.V. news tells them that a different, one sided story (the Lebanese want Syria out)then that must be true.

Yes, half of the Lebanese people want Syria out, but the other half(the half that the Syrians were protecting when they helped stop the Lebanese 15 year Civil War) most likely want them to stay. But we don't hear their voices, that's counter to the goal of this lie.

This, sudden, "Get Syria Out" push, is a lever. It gives the U.S. the needed leverage that * lacked before, to puts extra pressure on the Syrian government to close their Iraqi Border and to turn over Wanted Iraqis that they have been giving refuge to. This shows the Syrians how quickly we can de-stabilize a small, middle eastern country.

Egypt's sudden change of attitude is bribery (aid), Lebanon's might be also. The main thing I know about Lebanon, is that international business and tourist were finally starting to think of Lebanon as something other than a war zone. Stable countries, especially former French colonies, go against the goals of the PNAC.

is at work in Lebanon. Moreover, if the assassination and subsequent unrest were intentionally intended to "manipulate", one also has to wonder whether or not the outcome is going to lead to the form of instability which lead to Syria placing troops within the Lebanon as before.

I mean, to me, what seems to be happening is an intentional unrest which will lead to behind the curtain deals on another leadership that will not necessarily advance the people, their "freedom" or "self-determination".

If the American people can be as successfully manipulated as they have by this particular leadership, I have no doubt that other peoples in other nations can also be manipulated and necessarily in such a way that serves their best interests but rather serves the interests of the corporocrats.

That is my concern.

I found this on the freelebanon.org website.

USCFL Task Force: Bush on Syria (February 21, 2005) President Bush said today in a speech in Brussels that Syria "must end" its three-decade (30 year) occupation of Lebanon.

Has had soldiers occupying Lebanon since the mid-seventies of the last century. They were intially invited in under Arab League auspices, among others, taking sides in a civil war, but in fact operating in furtherance of Syria's desires to incorporate the Lebanon into a Greater Syria. These are long-standing, going back to the first days of Feisal's short-lived kingdom at Damascus after the Great War.

"History is just one damned thing after another."

But I appreciate your response. I'm sure the opposition could come together in two weeks time and be that organized, right down to the red & white Lebanese flag, but it smells like another US funded idea. It's just my opinion, so it's not worth very much.

The left will abandon him. The only good things I've heard about him was from those of the left.

:crazy: Part of his Job is watching T.V. "news" shows all day. All it shows is that the Propaganda Squads are getting REALLY Good at convincing folks that these "People taking to the Streets" demonstrations are spontaneous, and NOT funded by "The Heritage Foundation" or Cato.:grr:

This is Ukraine 2 Folks, no doubt about it.:evilgrin:

I noticed he was absolutely giving bush credit for 'liberating Lebanon'. Ahhh it's disturbing really...he's all we got I sometimes think.


ps..my first post!

I'm looking for ward to watching TDS tonight , but I dont mind cutting Jon some slack for the odd slightly pro-twat comment here and there.

:hi:

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

no Middle Eastern newspaper is reporting that Bush had anything to do with it.
I don't know why American media simply cannot tell the truth - the people were spurred by the assassination of their former prime minister to oust the Syrian-backed government. It's more akin to the Archduke of Ferdinand than anything Shrub did or didn't do.

Although - there is some grumbling that Bush or Israel had a hand in the assassination, which isn't going over too well in Lebanon.

He said nothing of the sort. He only pointed out (to a Democratic guest mind you) that the way certain things have been going lately it gives the appearance that Bush's policies might be working. The Democratic guest rightly pointed out that those were popular uprisings and cannot be credited to Bush and that even they would not attempt to take credit for that.

Further, Jon is not a dancing monkey for the Left or the Right. His job is to analyze the news and make jokes about it. When you start calling him on things like this you start taking him too seriously. He says one thing slightly positive about the Bush policy and people shout that he's become an administration tool.

It seems like ever since the Iraq election he's been drifting further and further away from criticizing Bush. I understand him making jokes about both sides and I appreciate it, but when he starts actually giving Bush credit where he doesn't deserve it, then I have a problem.

I don't expect him to walk lockstep behind the Democrats, but I tune into JS to get away from the rightwing propaganda that I face whenever I turn on the tv.

If you would set your ideology aside for thirty minutes you might laugh sometime. Or is everything just that serious?

I just stated my opinion and people are free to agree or disagree with me. I tune in because I like to take time to laugh. If I want to hear rightwing talking points that are supposed to be funny, I'll watch Dennis Miller.

Things are going right? Palestine and Israel had a truce broken, 120 dead in Iraq, Saddam's judge assassinated. One short of 1,500 American kids dead www.icasualties.org

Someone (or several folks with strong minds) who are DEEP DEEP skeptics, need to start watching these "Popular Uprisings," and record the names of the "news reporters" who suddenly come out of the woodwork to cover Lebanon and Ukraine, then look into these peoples backgrounds and find out where they suddenly came from.



Did ya ever noticed how ALL these people that are being interviewed at these "Spontaneous Demonstrations" all seam to speak Excellent English?



It's amazing how that ALWAYS seems to happen at these things. :think:

And judging by most of these posts, they probably didn't actually see the show. Jon Stewart made it very clear that if this was a good thing, that he almost hates to see it happen, as if to lend credence to the Bush Administration's tactics in the Middle East, which he explicitly denounced, more than once. At one point, he put his head down, implying that it was really hard for him to say anything positive about Bush.

Also, at the very beginning of the segment, he said to his guest, of the Bush administration, "I really don't care for these guys, at all...just between you and me."

Talk about overreacting. Watch the show first, then react. Plus, he was addressing these "feelings" to his Democratic guest, who basically agreed, saying, "Yeah, it's actually pretty scary for Democrats if this wave of democratic reforms continue..."(something to that effect).

Gotta drink it up... Chimp is KING... Chimp is EMPEROR-in-THIEF...Long Live the Chimp...Hail thee Chimp...you're people SALUTE YOU...for remaining steadfast and strong no matter how many "slings and arrows" you have suffered.....WE THE "FOURTH ESTATE" Stand BY YOU!" All Hail Mighty CHIMP! We grovel in awe at the feet of your "Texas Boots."

:puke:

I did that Olberman tonight and got the crap beaten out of me in another thread...gotta be careful with your opinions here.

Hey, he wishes to be GOP, no problem. Just don't expect me to support him.

He was just wondering with the recent developments that it may give the appearance that Bush's policies are wondering. He's not "migrating to the GOP". Jesus people, get that bug outta your ass.

and he did not sound to happy that thr news was looking better in the ME because he hates Bush like we do....I think it is pretty obvious that there will not be a true democracy in any Arab country....it is all smoke and mirrors!

Lebanon may actually be a swing toward democracy. It's not a "because of Bush" event. Their beloved previous PM was just killed, and they've had enough.

That's what I've read and that's what Stewart echoed. His guest was blatantly fanning the flames of the RIGHT with her anti-Coulter "jokes" along the lines of "I hope we fail". That's what put me off on this particular episode.

I just asked a question and obviously, from the responses, there are some who agree with me and some who disagree. I just hope we don't lose JS, he's been a real force for truth. I don't mind him acknowledging when things go well, but I don't wish to hear the rightwing's propaganda before I go to sleep. Then again, I could use an extra 30 minutes of rest.

He doesn't give Bush "credit". He's afraid that certain goals will be met by using force, which in turn may set a precident of "my way by force" through out the world.

It's kind of like saying "if I drain this whole lake, I'll have easy access to all the fish". Some will argue against because that's a stupid idea since the lake will be ruined, some will argue against because the fish may be sucked out with the water, and some will argue for because all that matters is getting the fish at any cost. If the lake is drained and the fish remain, the only winner is the first arguement. That's what I've been getting from Stewart lately.

...people here on DU think they've suddenly become Sean Hannitys?

John's a bit confused by tonights propaganda. Jon Has NOT gone to the "Dark Side!"

because of the UKRAINE.

So why are so many Americans simply ignoring what Lebanon itself says and crediting bush?

I guess everyone in the entire world except Americans are stupid ignorant little nobodies who don't have a clue WTF they're talking about, so as we did/are doing with the Iraqis, we just ignore them.

After all, Americans know best.

On Meet the Press Sunday, they even did give Bush credit for spreading Democracy in Ukraine, as well a everywhere else.

I commented on the show previously on Light Up the Darkness:
http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/?view=plink&id=437

on his watch...such as 911.

On MTP I noted that they gave Bush credit for everything good, but not bad. Even sticking to Iraq, they talked about the elections as good, but ignored the cost, such as tripling in al Qaeda operatives, alienation of the moderate Arab world, etc.

At least Maureen Dowd was there to point out how Bush lied us into war (which the conservatives still denied).

Instead of countering bushbots taking credit with your above example, the rush is to discredit the thing entirely.

I didn't find most of the show very funny tonight. I agree that he was re-playing the "made for TV" version of the news.

The Tort Reform clip had some dark humor.



Video in Real Media format (6 minutes)

I don't recall him advertising himself as a champion of liberal causes.

The show is about COMEDY. It's not about pandering to the left.

...don't you realize EVERYTHING is about politics, all the time? Humor isn't really humor unless it denegrates the right and uplifts the left. Stewart is a classic ironist, and like Letterman, gets his jollies by deflating the pompous ass.

Since we on the left never do anything pompous, any attempts at humour at our expense must be because the humorist has fallen under the spell of the right (or has had his life or career threatened).

Conversely, if at anytime anyone on the right does or says anything positive, it is merely propaganda, lies to make us all "drink the Kool-Aid."

//sarcasm off


We can't see the way to win elections, until we remove our heads from our asses.

This reminds me of Tucker Carlson harping on Stewart on Crossfire for being too soft on dems! John Stewart is not a spokesperson for the dems!

Honestly, though, the only way Bush has anything to do with what is going on there is if his henchmen killed the Hasirsi (sp) guy, (which I believe they did and said so when it happened), so it's really a moot point.

But my theory is that he gets safe neo-con street cred on moot issues like this so repuke guests will come on his show and he can make them look stupid.

I am still giving him benefit of the doubt, but I am watching to see if this has just been a "phase".
One or two shows would not make me unplug, but there is not much making me keep Direct TV besides JS and Countdown. Lou Dobbs was pretty good the other night though.
If JS keeps going the way he is though, I am done with it.
Being newly unemployed, it is a stretch to keep it going anyway.

whacko and kept replaying and making fun of The Dean Scream. I didn't watch it for a while. Then I did again. What can I say--it's a funny show, most of the time.

I noticed it with the Iraqi elections too. But then, he made it clear tonight that he hated Bush and he was just wondering if their bone-headed decisions are somehow making everything fall into place.

After four years of this shit, he may be looking at the next four and feel exhausted. When you're beaten down, the propaganda can easily creep in. That said, Stewart is not nor will he ever be GOP, so we don't have to worry.

I'm watching the show now and he and his guest are just saying things in Lebanon are going fairly well now. Jon nor his guest are giving big kudos to any bushies.

His talent is NOT to be a political detractor.

His talent is to teach a healthy distrust of news media and how to poke fun at it.

I guarantee if Bush's nation-building starts getting Reagan-like credit for a successful election in Greece or the bumper corn crop in Iowa, Stewart will ask "Whaaaaaa?"

I read about this and was curious to see just what was said.

...on the right-wing talker where I work, callers are all up-in-arms because last night's "Daily Show" was so antiBush.

As Paul Simon once said... "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

It's much more complicated, and goes a lot farther back in history. Read what the editor of Lebanon's largest English speaking paper, The Daily Star, has to say:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=103