John Stewart

Republicans play into Dem hands on Steele’s comments

Posted on Updated on

RNC chairman Michael’s Steels’ recent comments about the Afghan War has Republicans up in arms. The people who are upset say that Republicans don’t politicize war.

Steele’s comment, that the war is Obama’s war, have the the people at MSNBC smelling blood. Jon Stewart, too.  They say the statement is not historically correct. Really? You mean to tell me that as President Obama couldn’t order all of our troops to immediately withdraw? When does anything that is now happening become the responsibility of this administration?

Than I heard Pat Buchanan talking today. I agreed with him, that the Republicans should not squash dissent. But then he said that the Republicans should not let the party be defined by people like Charles Krauthammer. Pat, Pat, Pat. If you read Krauthammer–who’s the most read conservative writer for a reason– you’d know that he was against the surge in Afghanistan.  And I was, too. But I’m not against identifying the real enemy–fundamentalist Islam, unlike our own government, whom in a recent report on  Major Hassan ‘s assassination of 12 US Soldiers, couldn’t be bothered to mention that radical Islam may have been his primary motivation. I guess slaughtering a dozen unarmed people whom you don’t know while screaming “Alahu Akbar!” (God is Great!) was the result of Tourrette’s  Syndrome.

Jon Stewart gave his usual amazed look while talking about Steele’s comments, saying that Steele has no clue about the history of the war. Well, wasn’t this exactly what Obama ran on? Didn’t he say repeatedly that we needed to exit Iraq immediately? So the argument that Obama has to stay in Afghanistan because leaving would hurt American prestige and strategic position doesn’t hold water.

Simple answers get us no where

Posted on Updated on

This article makes the great point that nothing is really that simple. Torture and war are very complicated and those who try to make it black and white are not being intellectually honest.

John Stewart is rarely intellectually honest. He just makes fun of people hoping that his humor will have the subliminal affect he desires; those people are stupid, and I’m not.

But people like Stewart would have a very difficult time were they the ones that actually had to make the tough calls. Picture Stewart as a cop on a car stop. He approaches the driver’s side door with due caution, stepping outside the arc of the car’s side mirror so the driver can’t view his approach. Stewart’s doing what’s right, like he’s done on hundreds of car stops. What he doesn’t know, is that the driver has just murdered his wife and has his infant son in back in a safety seat.

When Stewart gets to about 15 feet from the vehicle, the driver whirls in his seat and points the Glock 22 pistol out the window at Stewart. The driver pulls the trigger as fast as he can, without aiming. Before Stewart can even touch his own weapon, he’s struck once in his protective vest and once in the leg. He responds in the way he’s been trained, though. He draws his weapon and returns fire through the back window of the car. Two rounds from his .40 cal handgun strike the driver in the head, killing him instantly. Another round strikes the infant, whom Stewart still has no idea is there. The child dies.

Where’s the simple answer, John? Where’s the quaint judgemental, denegrating comment now? What else could you have done, if you wanted to go home to your wife and children that night?

Truth is, Stewart’s the kind of guy who’s never been in physical danger. I guarantee it.

But I do love the Jack Nicholson quote from A Few Good Men, that the author of the article quotes:

“I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said ‘thank you’ and went on your way.”