John Gibson thinks Jon Stewart "Purposefully" Misunderstood being mocked over 9/11?
Edited on Tue Aug-21-07 02:36 AM by Vyan
Last week Fox News Host John Gibson decided that he's going to get into the "comedy" game and decided to make fun of Jon Stewart's viceral emotional reaction to the death, tragedy and loss of 9/11 - arguing in support of the notion that we need another 9/11 (Audio)
To which Stewart responded with.
Some idiot from Fox" was "playing the tape of me after September 11th" and "calling me a phony because, apparently, my grief didn't mean acquiescence"
STEWART: The view from the south of Manhattan is now the Statue of Liberty.
GIBSON: I'm touched.
ANGRY RICH: Let me bash Bush for the next six years.
STEWART: You can't beat that.
GIBSON: You can't beat that. Well --
ANGRY RICH: Phony.
So Stewart says he was called a phony, and low and behold - He was called a "Phony".
"What? You just lost your best friend in a horrible tragedy that killed thousands of others? Here - how 'bout a shake with a hand buzzer? ZZZZZzzzzTTTT Oh, and that chair you're in has a whoppee cushion -- Wheeeeeee!!!!
Phony!"
When exactly does cheap crap like that get funny?
Let me point out two other things, Jon Stewart isn't The Media - he's a comedian who actually broke character for moment and had an honest and real emotional response to what happened to the city in which he lives. There was no punchline in his crying jag. There was no setup. No zinger - that was it.
His work actually has nothing to do with being Liberal or being Conservative, it has to do with being FUNNY. He was pretty vicious (and hilarious) with President Clinton while he was in office - so exactly why shouldn't he go after Bush the same way that Jay Leno does? Or Conan O'Brien? Or Jimmy Kimmel (except for y'know - being funny when he does it?)
But the true arguement is really about Gibson's next statement.
GIBSON: Actually, you could. If you wait a little while, you'll say, just as Steve Martin used to say, "Should I fight the terrorists? Should I listen to their phone calls? Should I follow them everywhere on the planet to keep America safe? Nah, let's kick the hell out of Bush."
Ok, here's the thing, when exactly has Jon Stewart - or for that matter any Democrat or Liberal - said we shouldn't listen to Al Qaeda's phone calls? Who has said we shouldn't follow them everywhere on the planet?
Some would say this is a constructing a Straw Man Arguement - I myself tend to call it what it is - Bullshitting!.
The real arguement that many have made isn't about whether should listen to terrorists - it's about whether you should also listen to honest, innocent Americans without a probable cause and a warrant and independant judicial oversight!
And it's not just the media who has complained, the judges on the FISA Court have ruled that Bush's spying program is illegal - twice. 30 Members of the Bush Administrations' own Justice department - including John Ashcroft, James Comey and FBI Director James Meuller - all threated to resign in protest over the program. Federal Judge Ann Diggs Taylor ruled the program illegal and unconstitutional. None of them said "we shouldn't be listening" - they all said there should be proper oversight to avoid abuse of the program, the kind of abuse that has already occured with the FBI's National Security Letters.
The issue isn't whether we should or shouldn't fight terrorists - it's about how, and whether we should shred our own Constitutional in the process.
Most of us on this side of the arguement understand this - and not all of us are "on the left" or even close to it - but apparently John Gibson ("Purposefully") doesn't understand.
GIBSON: This is Stephen Hayes.
STEWART: No. They keep saying we don't understand the nature of this war. And critics keep saying, we understand the nature of it. You've been doing it wrong.
HAYES: Right, so why is that -- what's the -- what's the quality of difference there?
STEWART: Well, no -- the difference there is, we're not calling them traitors.
GIBSON: Yeah, you are.
HAYES: I don't -- yeah, but I don't think that the administration has called anyone a traitor. When has it happened? I mean, I'm serious. When has that happened? When has that happened?
STEWART: Let me say this. I -- I think that there's a real feeling in this country that your patriotism has been questioned by, by people in -- in very high-level positions. Not fringe people. You know, I myself had some idiot from Fox --
GIBSON: Uh-oh.
STEWART: -- playing the tape of me after September 11th --
GIBSON: Oh, well --
Pardon me while I pull a Gibson: That was a tease? Since when is it funny to tease someone for their grief?
Yeah, he thinks -- Jon Stewart thinks the war has been fought wrong.
Yeah, well - so do the soldiers (more of whom have been killed in this fruitless war in Iraq than died on 9/11).
The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. <...>
In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.
And the Iraq Study Group who argued that escalating the conflict wouldn't help.
-69% Disapprove of how George Bush is handling Iraq.
-48% Disapprove of how George Bush is handling terrorism (44% approve)
-60% Would Disapprove of Mass Detention of Muslims even if there was another 9/11 attack
-63% Feel that most Muslims do not condone violence
Back to Gibson.
to say that the liberal side hasn't called people traitors is absurd. It certainly has. Bloggers who idolize Jon Stewart have been trashing me for mocking Stewart do precisely that.
They probably do - but that's not what Stewart said which was "I think that there's a real feeling in this country that your patriotism has been questioned by, by people in -- in very high-level positions. Not fringe people."
People like these, as I posted in detail last week...
Dennis Hastert: liberals want to take "the 130 most treacherous people, probably in the world...and release them out in the public eventually."
Tom Delay : Pelosi and Reid are getting "very, very close to treason" by opposing the Iraq war.
Donald Rumsfeld : War Critics are like Hitler Appeasers
John Ashcroft : "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty; my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists - for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends."
Dick Cheney : "It’s absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we’ll get hit again,"
George Bush : "However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses."
These people aren't Bloggers, John - do you understand that?
More from Gibby.
Stewart's funny. He's a -- he's a comedian doing the news. He should expect some shots once in a while.
Frankly, he probably does expect them. There are few people more self-depreciating that Jon Stewart on TV. The difference is that a "shot" is one thing, but ridiculing the man's legitimate grief and calling it "phony" isn't a shot, it's accusing him of being a liar - it's not comedy - it's Defamation. Do you understand defamationp, John?
I want to know, where is the Jon Stewart that was so grief-stricken, and why does he think what I think are reasonable measures to fight the war on terror like wiretapping, like going after Iraq, like Guantánamo Bay -- I think those are reasonable measures.
Wiretapping without a warrant is a violation of the 4th Amendment. Invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and nothing to do with terrorism - was just plain stupid. Even Dick Cheney said so way back before he became a member of the "Fourthbranch" as was like - still relatively sane.
Using Guantánamo Bay as an oasis for torture is in direct violation of International Law and is a War Crime.
Just ask Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch or for that matter - Colin Powell.
"(E)very morning I pick up a paper and some authoritarian figure, some person somewhere, is using Guantanamo to hide their own misdeeds," Powell said. "(W)e have shaken the belief that the world had in America’s justice system by keeping a place like Guantanamo open... We don’t need it, and it’s causing us far more damage than any good we get for it."
The Gibster.
(Stewart) thinks (these measures are) absurd. He thinks they're almost beneath argument, and he thinks he's right without having to engage in an argument. And I guess he's come to think, and a lot of other people have come to think, that he is a sacred cow and cannot, you know, be subject to an elbow now and then. And I'm sorry he thinks that way 'cause I think he's funny and I like him and I think he's one of the most dangerous guys on TV. He certainly was when I was there.
John, I certainly wouldn't trust your opinion of what Jon Stewart thinks since you haven't gotten anything right so far. Sorry, that's how I feel.
The idea that Stewart's tears of grief are cannon fodder for bad.. really bad... so-called comedy on your part, that they were somehow illegitimate or "phony" simply because Stewart has not acquiesced to each and every crime that the Bush Administration has perpetrated against the American people and the world under the pretext of their failed War on Terror is just. plain. preposterous.
The Latest Nation Intelligence Estimate says that our efforts in Iraq have made Al Qaeda as strong as it was before 9/11. You really don't think that such a track record deserves - no, DEMANDS - more than a bit a criticism and ridicule?
But then again, since you want another 9/11 why should you care right?
Here's a "reasonable" measure for you John, instead of invading the wrong country then refusing to leave like a spoiled child, surveiling, rendering and torturing innocent people like Maher Arar, Abu Omar and as many as 14,000 others - how 'bout we actually GET BIN LADEN?!
Why does your American IDLE - Bush - stand by while Pakistan signs a Peace Treaty with the Taliban - and then the Taliban announce a Merger With Al Qaeda? Why doesn't he focus on that instead of Iraq? Why doesn't he stop the people who actually attacked us?
How bout that, eh? That sound "reasonable enough" for you?
Or would actually succeding in the War on Terror get in the way of your ongoing War on Common Sense and the Constitution? Do you really want to Win the War on Terror or simply use it to continue terrorizing and manipulating the American people?
... on what goes on, hoping to be witty, or humourous, or -- at my best -- thought-provoking.
You, on the other hand, are a true journalist. Your writings are always well-supported by facts (which you lay out in detail), and you have a way of tying things together in an easily understandable commentary.
24. I like the post...but I think Gibson is stoking the fire to...
1. get some publicity 2. make him seem like a genuine conservative (which basically means genuine idiot to us) 3. set up Stewrat as Fox's latest boogy-man (like H. Clinton, Edwards, Obama, B. Clinton, etc).
If I were Stewart, I'd simply ignore it.
The whole affair did make me ask myself, "Do I hate John Gibson more than I hate Bill O'Reilly?"
You do realise that the typo in point 3 has probably given the freeper crowd a new nickname for Stewart, right? Or maybe they already call him that, I dunno.
33. Me, too. It's such a hard decision, but Gibson may be taking the lead because
while O'Reilly is evil and cunning, Gibson is just evil and dumb-as-they-come, yet he insists on trying to sell himself as a an intellectual - which makes him even more odious (look it up, Gibby).
And then where would you rank Geraldo Rivera?/ Oooh, this is getting so hard!
Apparently, Gibson has discovered that riding Stewart's coattails by perpetuating this story is the path-of-least-resistance for his own self-promotion.
I must admit to often only skimming posts this long, but I read every word of this one. You have a talent for writing in a way that is easy to take in from a computer screen. (In addition to the outstanding gathering of facts and analysis.)
That's funny, because I think Jon Stewart is a symbol of American resilience, cleverness, and yes, ingenuity. You see, the right-wingers had pretty much destroyed dissent by questioning everybody's patriotism when they dared to step out of line and question George Bush's policies. Because no one could challenge them, they just ratchet up their hate talk, making everyone hate everyone in this country. Then along comes Jon Stewart and brings satire into our lives and effectively deflates the right-wing air bags.
Every time Jon Stewart makes us laugh, a right-winger loses his bluster.
In fact, on a show with right-wingers that tried to question him like he was a bona fide journalist, his reply was, folks, the show before mine involves a purple cartoon character. The problem here is that people are coming to my show because they can't find anyone willing to comment on the real events of the day.
Stewart was very reserved in his comment about this bag of offal. But I think it's great that butt-holes like Gibson have to refer to Jon Stewart to get traction. I'm sure that the barrel-bottomers who watch and listen to Gibson have the memory of mayflies and won't, therefore, see the obvious bull-pudding he and this "Angry Rich" wankeroo are feeding them. But the rest of us know what Gibson is up to -- and it's pathetic. As your ratings go down, you find an enemy. O'Reilly -- for reasons that even he can't articulate -- chose DailyKos. Gibson chose Stewart. Both O'Reilly and Gibson are -- let's call them out on it -- liars and phoneys. They live and breath the festering air of Corporate Fascism. It's perfume to them. But ultimately the tactic doesn't work. The viewers and listeners numbers diminish, no new viewers or listeners are interested, and, ultimately, you fade away and become no more than an irritating memory.
(It is a nice touch, though, Gibby, to support Corporate Fascism and the rule of the Wealthy and Powerful, and have as your side-ninny a cretin who likes to be called "Angry Rich." Unfortunately, all your pandering to the vile rich, all your kneeling before Bush as a wannabee Carlyle Groupie, won't buy you the one thing you need most and that John Stewart has: ratings!)
(Yeah, Stewart also has integrity and intellectual honesty going for him. Gibby, I know you think those concepts are just "cons" to impress the little people. But you're wrong, so wrong, so sadly wrong. But, then, you work for Fox.)
What a great post illustrating the reasons Gibson can only get a job with the propaganda wing of the Republican Party. It's becoming more obvious that the right wing is losing its grip. If Gibson had any nuts he'd appear on The Daily Show and maybe the Colbert Report. But alas, Mr. Gibson, like the rest of the right wing echo chamber is nutless, brainless and thoughtless. Maybe they saw how Olbermann's ratings went up every time Billo mentioned his name and are expecting Stewart's audience to watch Gibson out of curiosity. If Pox (deliberate typo) News had any credibility as a news source they wouldn't have tried their own comedy show, and it failed because was about as funny as Pox is credible.
29. i recently dubbed that post 9/11 speech by stewart
it was very moving again. and what he said was depressing 6 years after as we know what georgie and his minions have done using 9/11 to manipulate america.
35. John Gibson is an idiot with intelligence of a rock.
John Stewart is actually quite brilliant and he is loved by America. Gibson is going to have as much luck going against Stewart as O'Lielly did going against Olbermann. He does not have a snowballs chance in hell of hurting John Stewart. This will just give Stewart higher ratings. BTW....What an awesome piece of writing you did!!!!!!!!!!!!! Excellent. Thank you for posting it.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Joseph Goebbels
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
42. It's very simple. To them, grief over 9/11 = idealizing the administration. Anyone who doesn't do so
is seen as a traitor.
I've read some VERY frightening comments from right-wing media personalities about liberals and Democrats that demonstrate a much bigger all-absorbing HATE for them than the hate they have for Al Qu'aida (somebody even told me: "We in the midwest hate liberals more than we hate Al Qu'aida"). And I think they REALLY do. They talk about hanging Madeleine Albright and other liberal/Democratic politicians for "treason", simply because they don't agree with their point of view?? And I'm sure they WANT it. They WANT to hang them. If they could do so and get away with it, they'd do it. That's how much HATE there's in their "hearts".
It boggles my mind why persons like Gibson and others, who have called for the extermination of leftist politicians and celebrities, are still on the air and not in jail. When I go on TV and call for the assassination of a politician, am I not getting arrested? So why are these hate-spewing jackasses still on TV? They're saying people who disagree with them should be put to DEATH!!
I am getting used to these moments - when gentle holiday geniality bleeds into… what? I lie on the beach with Hillary-Ann, a chatty, scatty 35-year-old Californian designer. As she explains the perils of Republican dating, my mind drifts, watching the gentle tide. When I hear her say, " Of course, we need to execute some of these people," I wake up. Who do we need to execute? She runs her fingers through the sand lazily. "A few of these prominent liberals who are trying to demoralise the country," she says. "Just take a couple of these anti-war people off to the gas chamber for treason to show, if you try to bring down America at a time of war, that's what you'll get." She squints at the sun and smiles. " Then things'll change."
snip
To my left, I find a middle-aged Floridian with a neat beard. To my right are two elderly New Yorkers who look and sound like late-era Dorothy Parkers, minus the alcohol poisoning. They live on Park Avenue, they explain in precise Northern tones. "You must live near the UN building," the Floridian says to one of the New York ladies after the entree is served. Yes, she responds, shaking her head wearily. "They should suicide-bomb that place," he says. They all chuckle gently. How did that happen? How do you go from sweet to suicide-bomb in six seconds?
Edited on Tue Aug-21-07 11:47 PM by republicansarewhores
Oh John Gibson... I'm pretty sure when you look up the word "douchebag" in the dictionary, you'll find the definition of the word "douchebag" which John Gibson IS.
Hey looks like he and the Fox Noise jagoffs won the war on Christmas, because I see it coming up on my calendar again this year...
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(990 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
