I wrote the following post back on Feb. 18th, back when the whole 'sphere was discussing whether or not John Stewart was trying to retro-actively claim credit for the war in Iraq. I never put it up, though, cos...well, I don't really remember why. So, read it, and then we'll meet again in a minute.
Is Jon Stewart retro-actively claiming credit for the success of the Iraqi elections? Read the discussion
here, then watch the video
here. Or do it the other way around. I don't care.
First, I think anyone would be pretty hard pressed to say that Jon Stewart could
ever get away with claiming support for
anything that's gone on in Iraq. Even if he did manage it, though, I think his audience would quite literally lynch him. Like, on camera.
At the opening of the segment, Stewart is saying, I think, "Ok, we gave 'em an election. That's democracy, right? Let's bail." Zakaria, quite rightly, puts Stewart's opening remark in context by chastising him and Ted Kennedy for supporting a withdrawl of American troops from the region. It would be disastrous, and completely negate all the work and the sacrifice so far.
Stewart then, I think, tries to ask Zakaria about the political implications for anti-war folks, but again Zakaria shows his smarts, and points out what Bush et al. were right about. This would be the much-discussed "domino effect." Stweart smarmily snarks, "Oh! Great! Civil war
everywhere!" Uh, no, Jon. Democracy everywhere. That's the goal, dipshit. It's not about whether or not Bush was right; it's about democracy blooming, thereby drying up the tyrannical regimes that allow terror to take root.
Maybe it's just cos I'm still a Kilborn partisan at heart, and have never really liked Stewart all that much, but I think he's cynically playing to the audience here, and taking every opportunity to spin what should rightly be construed as a positive event to slam Bush. Listen to how the audience applauds when Zakaria calls Sistani "more rational" than Bush. He's given no time to explain how or why he feels this way. Nor do I think the audience knows. But they know it was a slap at Bush. And they love it. Kilborn was never afraid to openly challenge or insult the audience. Stewart here just seems like he's pandering.
Ok, so I decided to finally post this today because I read this transcript of his interview last night with some book-peddling joker who is some sort of Democrat Party foreign policy mainstay; she's advised the campaigns of Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry. Go read the transcript, and then tell me what you think. Would Stewart ever come around on the war? Would his audience let him? What would it take?