Whores cite Jon Stewart as evidence Bush is right

I think this collection of snips from RW and whore columns tells the story of why I hated Stewart's stupid bit so much.

Peggy Noonan
There are two predominant journalistic memes since the Arab spring began. The first, from the left: What if Bush was right? This was most famously and appropriately grappled with on Comedy Central, when Democratic foreign-policy thinker Nancy Soderberg consoled Jon Stewart with the hopefully facetious, but either way revealing, advice to hang on, things can still turn bad with North Korea or Iran.


Jeff Jacoby
Even Jon Stewart, host of Comedy Central's ''Daily Show" and an indefatigable Bush critic, has learned the new lyrics. ''Here's the great fear that I have," he said recently. ''What if Bush . . . has been right about this all along? I feel like my world view will not sustain itself and I may . . . implode."


Andrea Mitchell
Even some of the president's critics are rethinking the war in Iraq.

Television host Jon Stewart recently joked about it.

"What if Bush, the president of ours, has been right about this all along? I feel that my world view may not sustain itself and I may, and again I don’t know if I can physically do this, implode," Stewart said Jan. 31 on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show."



Charles Krauthammer
Jon Stewart, the sage of Comedy Central, is one of the few to be honest about it. "What if Bush ... has been right about this all along? I feel like my world view will not sustain itself and I may ... implode." Daniel Schorr, another critic of the Bush foreign policy, ventured, a bit more grudgingly, that Bush "may have had it right."


Noemie Emery
Claiming credit in retrospect for things you opposed at the time is a new high in chutzpah, or, if not that, in delusion. But delusion is what people retreat to when reality is much too traumatic. "Here's the great fear that I have," said comedian Jon Stewart once the Iraq elections were over. "What if Bush, the president, ours, has been right about this all along? I feel that my world view may not sustain itself, and I may, and again I don't know if I can physically do this, implode." Why does one feel that he speaks for the Browns, and the Hertzbergs, and beyond them, for millions of others? "We wait to see if Democrats can find a way to talk about the Iraqi elections that isn't madness personified," The Note, the political newsletter of ABC News, said after two weeks of this madness. And so do we all.

Noemie Emery is a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard.

:argh:

They took it out of context!

:grr:

is in high gear............

be careful not to give them any more fodder.........

Conservative X say Y, where Y is a gross distortion of what a Liberal said

Rush Limbaugh repeats it
Sean Hannity repeats it
Bill O'Reilly repeats it
Michael Savage repeats it
Mike Gallagher repeats it
Dennis Prager repeats it
Hugh Hewitt repeats it
Larry Elder repeats it
Lars Larson repeats it
Brit Hume repeats it
Michael Medved repeats it
Ann Coulter repeats it
Laura Ingrahamn repeats it
Etc

"Is it possible President * was/is correct?"

http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2005/03/07/dougmond.htm

...and Peggy Noonan is just totally Batty, quoting or praising what she reads at FR. Check out this paragraph, it's almost schizophrenic:

"...I continue to think the president's inaugural address, suggesting as it did that he was on a mission to expunge all political tyranny from the globe, and asserting that our nation's survival depended on this utopian project, was a rather crazy speech, weirdly Wilsonian and at odds with conservatism's ancestral knowledge of the imperfectability of this world and the inability of politics to heal all that wounds us. (Take it away, FreeRepublic.) Samuel Johnson was a genius of literature, but he knew his politics: "How small of all that human hearts endure / That part which laws or kings can cause or cure!"..." :crazy:

Have they written anything since * and the WH said they are going to work with Hisbulla? I bet they a bit quieter this week. :shrug:

and he has a point. I personally believe that if democracy spreads in the Middle East, it has more to do with the fact that democracy is a powerful argument by itself, and also that America and the Brits have really big, strong militaries.

But while I think that Bush has screwed up the strategy every way possible, if this turns out for the good, I will also give him a little credit, because I believe in honesty more than partisanship.

rates Oil Profit strongmen - above democracy. How else do you keep the Oil Wealth in the Middle East from attacking you & creating Islamist fundamentalists. You spread those profits very thin = democracy.

The trick is that "you broke it you fix it" meant something different to neocons when Powell said it - well Cheney, Rumsfield, & right wing etc.. had already broken it in Iraq (Iran) etc. in the last 40 years by putting profit ahead of true democratic change. They were already at a point where they had to fix it or there would never be peace in Israel.

Terrorists need big huge pools of wealth that can endless fund terrorists and make suicide bombing a ticket for your family into the middle class... to keep going as to Islamist. The only way to stop 'big huge pools of wealth' from being created as they have for 40 years is to finally weigh real democracy ahead of Big Oil Profit potential (spreading the Oil wealth around to all people until it is in tiny puddles if not raindrops) .

Ergo the peace breaking out all over the place. People have a chance for democracy. America is no longer trying to undo it in the Middle East. Actually Democracy is a capitalist tool of 'divide & conquer'. If Africa or Middle East became a common market and then one nation.. that would really be bad. Corporations have a better chance of dominating in smaller countries that if they negotiate a whole region. Remember, out of the world's biggest 100 economies, 51 are corporations and like 48 are American Corporations. So the deck has just been shuffled. Democracy Good.

Democracy promotion is a Liberal thing for the last 50 years (if it was a good & true democracy it did not matter if it started out a little to the left). Mark my words... if democracy promotion was not the key to stopping rogue fundamentalist groups, and from little countries from becoming huge countries and thus a threat to corporations.. the neocons would not be using it. The conservatives were wrong for 40 years. Now they have seen the light and oh my gosh peace breaks out everywhere... Now for South America!!

It seems that the only requirement for democracy to not be interfered with is a big and strong enough opposition (alternative) to USA that the USA meets you in the middle.

So come one and come all! If you want the USA to let you have a democracy .. and allow oil profits to stay within your country then you have to get your rogue elements to form groups with all the neighboring country rogue elements and USA will 'make you have a democracy' asap.

The time of alliances is breaking out about a decade earlier than it needed to. Seems like nobody wants to start an alliance with the USA. I mean - perpetual war?

means. Of course Democracy breaking out is good. Why is a totally different thing. For sure in the short term neocons are going to take credit for the whole thing. But History tells the truth. Democracy is working because the needs of people inside the countries are finally being placed above needs of US Oil.

If you build it they will come!!