Keeerekt, sir. I'm like Kerry with respect to Stewart's show. I love it but I hate it. As the great Khan said, "I grow fatigued" with Stewart's basic cynicism. He's all about mockery, which makes sense given the show is supposed to be a mockery of all news making genres. But the interview is where real live people with serious things to say are given a whopping five minutes (commercial break included) to say things that Stewart can mock. This is when Stewart comes off as either the ignorant, suck up that he is or the ignorant, disrespectful punk that he is. And because he doesn't actually know shit, probably because he's been putting together a mockery of the days events, he spends those five minutes tearing down his guest. Still, the show, almost every night,is pretty goddamned funny.

But this Stephen hayes interview wasn't even his usual semi-polite mockery; I'm sure Hayes wanted to punch his lights out.

I haven't had patience for the Daily Show in forever. If there's one thing that absolutely drives me up the wall, it's smugness. I don't care what your point is, if you're delivering it in a smug and (to borrow Bill's word) smirking fashion, I'm going to start throwing punches.

It kinda makes me sick when I realize that news, entertainment, and discourse are all the same thing to a majority of Americans.

I've been thinking about cancelling my cable.

Anything that's worthwhile on cable comes out on DVD anyway (The Shield, South Park, Sopranos, etc.). You save alot of money, to boot (about $1000/yr based on what I pay now).

Jim H,

If you're going to do that, get some milage out of it and write to the folks who advertise on the Daily Show, et al, and tell them you've cancelled your subscription because of the crap that they and other advertizers are endorsing.

I used to watch the Daily Show because it was often about clever, informed satire. Now it has descended into cheap mockery I cannot watch it anymore. Repeating the Big Lie over Iraq war aims is not funny.

Bravo Romeo,

The message is being sent regardless of whether I would write anything.

My understanding is that the ratings are reflecting a rather large defection of males 18-49 from TV already so they gotta be thinking WTF.

Jim H - Really? Where did you hear that?

I'm very disappointed with the Daily. The monologue Stewart did when he came back on the air after 9/11 was genuinely moving. I only wish he'd stuck to what he said then.

I gave up on the Daily Show a while ago. It used to be my favorite show on TV and now it has been so consumed by anti-Bush hatred that I can't watch it any more. The same goes for Howard Stern.

Four words to counter the smirking chimp hack, Stewart:

Colin Quinn's Tough Crowd

give it a shot...

Claire,

I've heard good things about Tough Crowd from other sources. When I saw the first ads for it I didn't think much about it. I didn't like Colin's stint as SNL's Weekend Update anchor as he appeared to be a Clinton suck-up. I don't watch that much TV anyway, but I might give it a try this week on your recommendation.

Yeah, Jon Stewart was way out of line, he doesn't know anything. Wait, I forgot, was it Stewart or Hayes who denied that Iran used chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war?

Hayes agreed with him, Ronnie. Clean out your ears. Also, Stewart brought it up as a red herring, as if Iran is somehow worse than Iraq. He also made similar throwaway arguments against Saudi Arabia, by virtue of the nationalities of most of the 9-11 hijackers, as if he would advocate an invasion of Saudi Arabia instead, based on assumed official govt. support of the terrorists. Bullshit.

Also -

A. Iran's use of Chemical Weapons were not by 99.999 percent of accounts, directed at civilians (though a former CIA employee alleges that Iran was the one that gassed Iraqi civilians - which has been largely disproven/contested by the rest of the intelligence community)

B. What in the fuck does Iran's use of chemical weapons have to do with a casus belli against Iraq, or iraq's distinct relationship with Al Qaeda.

I'm sick and tired of these diversionary throwaways, as if leftists against the war in Iraq would actually advocate using or military in any way against the other regimes in the Middle East. Iraq was the strongest case, largely by virtue of the fact that they were continuing to emply force of arms agaisnt the United States.

But don't let facts get in the way of your worldview - go see F-9-11.

Bill from INDC,

What troubles me is not the actual war in Iraq (well, as much as one cannot be troubled by a war when their friends are fighting in it), by the seeming incoherence of the "Bush Doctrine". We attack Iraq due to the fact that intelligence showed that the counrty was an imminent threat, had weapons on black market, etc. It seems now that some of the intel was flawed. OK, whatever. An area of intelligence that is not denied is the fact that Pakistan, a country with rampant radical Islam and a repressive military regime, has nuclear capabilites. Does not the Bush Doctrine call an attack on our supposed partner? Or North Korea, obviously they are a threat, and fall within the lines drawn by the Bush Doctrine? We had to choose Iraq because let's admit it, A) The past 3 presidents screwed up the situation. B) It was personal, and C) Their army is third rate and was hamstrung by 12 years of us bombing their missle to air sites.
By now you think I'm a blowhard (who can't spell), that's fine. This is just my opinion. The gist of my argument is that the Bush Doctrine is riddled with inconsistencies. The Monroe Doctrine was not. Bush would be better off without a Doctrine because he looks like a coward for proceeding with a hard-line the whole way through. But Big-Old Strawman Leftest is there to blame for setbacks or incoheriency, so strike away at this comment. Have a nice night.

So ... your entire opposition to the war is based on the inconsistency of the Bush Doctrine?

Reality dictates that:

A. Pakistan is ostensibly an ally (the current govt is) - we can work with them to a great extent. In contrast, not only was Saddam Hussein an overt, declared enemy, but he was actively shooting at Americans, attempted to assassinate Bush Sr., and overtly supporting certaibn types of terrorism as official govt policy. So no, based on cooperation with pakistan's govt., the Bush doctrine does NOT call for an attack. And if the govt were seized by Islamic radicals, the US has a contingency plan to secure Pakistan's nuclear capability. (not sure if it would be successful, but ...)

B. North Korea - yes, to a good extent, N Korea is a case that would fall under the Bush Doctrine, though most of their malodorous efforts fall under the heading of crime rather than terror. The problem is, as you state, there is no preemptive military option. Sited artillery could incinerate Seoul in the first hour of conflict, and the possession of a nuclear weapon makes them largely insulated from attack. we can't, so we instead use other means to deal with them, which may or mat not work - note that none of these alternate means worked with Saddam Hussein.

C. Past Presidents:

1. Reagan's policy towards Saddam was distasteful, but followed the guidelines of Realpolitik, leaving Iran contained. I do not support it on ethical grounds, especially after the gassing of the Kurds.

2. Bush 1 did a wonderful thing in kicking Saddam out of Kuwait, but erred greatly in not toppling the dictator. I understand realpolitik concerns (which we face with nation building now), but his incitement of the Shia rebellion and subsequent failure to support as they were slaughtered represents one of this country's greatest moral failures (along with the Bay of Pigs, the inaction against the Holocaust, and the sellout of Poland after WWII)

3. Clinton didn't have much political capital to start a war with Iraq, but i would have loved to see him exercise his vaunted diplomatic skill to build a coalition as Saddam defied the UN Resoltions and terms of the cease fire that ended the Gulf War

4. Bush - I think this "it's personal" argument is simply childish. Just because YOU see things in a very micro human emotive light, doesn't mean that the policy analysts at the top of US govt that have been advocating toppling Saddam for years do. remember, Paul Wolfowitz, that oft-maligned "madman" argued stridently that the US should support the shia uprising after the first Gulf War and topple Saddam, out of moral principle and his prediction that Saddam would pose a problem again. He was right.

And your second to last argument, that somehow it is a sign of weakness or the doctrine's failure to attacka country we can beat ... well that's silly. Different measures for different situations. No situation is b & w; North Korea no, Iraq yes. The upside to Iraq (besides the fact that we can beat them, which looks evident now, but did not before the war - remember the predictions of mass casualties in streetfighting in Baghdad) - is that the installation of a representative government will spur reform in the region.

Your ready-made example of this is what has happened in 8 new democracies of 12 governments that the US has toppled in this century - when democracy took root, the whole region changed - the best example being the Soviet detente and collapse, after which democracy has flourished.

This can still happen in the middle East.

Oh and by teh way ... you know who advocated and had a large hand in plotting the extremely successful strategy against the Soviets and the subsequent Democratization of eastern Europe?

Wolfowitz. This prophecy was fulfilled along with many other incredibly prescient predictions over the last 30 years.

Google all you can and learn a bit about him; you might be surprised.

Also, the motivations for this war aren't bad; they are rooted optimism. Not every exercise of American power is bad, and the Bush Doctrine, based in an attempt to thwart what unfortunately looks to be the inevitable nexus of WMD and terror, is a useful tool in the new paradigm of 21st Century national defense.

But that's a whole 'nother long post.