1990 "Iraq has developed a chemical weapons capability, and is pursuing a nuclear weapons development program." (In 1991 Senator Kerry was in the minority of senators who voted against the Persian Gulf War.)
1997 "Should the resolve of our allies wane, the United States must not lose its resolve to take action." He further warned that if Saddam Hussein were not held to account for violation of UN resolutions, some future conflict would have "greater consequence."
1998 "I think there is a disconnect between the depth of the threat that Saddam Hussein presents to the world and what we are at the moment talking about doing... we have to be prepared to go the full distance, which is to do everything possible to disrupt his regime and to encourage the forces of democracy....
"I am way ahead of the commander in chief, and I'm probably way ahead of my colleagues and certainly of much of the country. But I believe this. I believe that he has used these weapons before. He has invaded another country. He views himself as a modern-day Nebuchadnezzar. He wants to continue to play the uniting critical role in that part of the world. And I think we have to stand up to that."
2002 "I would disagree with John McCain that it's the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it's what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel.
"Those are the things that -- that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It's the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat."
2003 "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community`s already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act."
2004 (January) "Saddam Hussein took us to war once before. In that war, young Americans were killed. He went to war in order to take over the oil fields. It wasn`t just an invasion of Kuwait. He was heading for the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. And that would have had a profound effect on the security of the United States.
"This is a man who has used weapons of mass destruction, unlike other people on this Earth today, not only against other people but against his own people. This is a man who tried to assassinate a former president of the United States, a man who lobbed 36 missiles into Israel in order to destabilize the Middle East, a man who is so capable of miscalculation that he even brought this war on himself.
"This is a man who, if he was left uncaptured, would have continued to be able to organize the Ba`athists. He would have continued to terrorize the people, just in their minds, because of 30 years of terror in Iraq."
and finally...
2004 (September) "Let me be as blunt and direct with the American people as I can be. The invasion of Iraq was a profound diversion from the battle against our greatest enemy -- al Qaeda.
Seems flip-floppish to me. He also seems to think that the strongest military in the world can't do two things at once.
> Hey I have some elephant repellent here to sell you, it causes cancer but hey you dont see any elephants around here do you so it must work.
So... let's shut down the CIA, the DHS, and the terrorism wing of the FBI? Do you have a similar attitude towards bugs and bug-repellant? Sunshine and sunscreen?
> the odds of dying to a terrorist attack in america is incredibly small
The only reason those odds are small is because of local and international efforts to keep them small.
Most of the stuff in the PATRIOT Act is non-controversial (it's a big piece of legislation). Letting two FBI agents, one on a criminal investigation and one on a terrorism investigation, share information -- does that strike you as controversial?
Furthermore, the following provisions of the PATRIOT Act expire on December 31st, 2005:
The temporary provisions are: sections 201 (wiretapping in terrorism cases), 202 (wiretapping in computer fraud and abuse felony cases), 203(b) (sharing wiretap information), 203(d) (sharing foreign intelligence information), 204 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) pen register/trap & trace exceptions), 206 (roving FISA wiretaps), 207 (duration of FISA surveillance of non-United States persons who are agents of a foreign power), 209 (seizure of voice-mail messages pursuant to warrants), 212 (emergency disclosure of electronic surveillance), 214 (FISA pen register/ trap and trace authority), 215 (FISA access to tangible items), 217 (interception of computer trespasser communications), 218 (purpose for FISA orders), 220 (nationwide service of search warrants for electronic evidence), 223 (civil liability and discipline for privacy violations), and 225 (provider immunity for FISA wiretap assistance).
A recent effort to avoid this expiration was shot down in flames.
> So if you are a comedian you have to be one 24/7? You never get any time off to just be a concerned citizen?
Jon takes plenty of "time off to just be a concerned citizen" on the Daily Show. He alternates between being serious and flippant on the show, or haven't you noticed?
If you want to laud one of his serious bits then he's all for it. But if you dare criticize one of his serious bits, suddenly he declares it all "just a comedy show".
I'm sure most of his fans don't consider it "just a comedy show".
> STEWART: You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls.
If we can't criticize him because he's on Comedy Central, then why should we listen to any serious arguments from him, seeing as he's on Comedy Central?
You can't have it both ways, Jon. Either you make real commentary and open yourself up to critique, or you don't. It's kinda sleazy to expect people to take you seriously one moment, and hide behind the moniker of "satire" the next.
I hate to be a wet blanket, but neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are evil. The phrase "lesser of two evils" is used here as an analogy. Our two main parties are not the equivalent of the Nazis and the Stalinists.
I wonder if people who call our two main political parties "evil" are the same people who criticized President Bush for calling terrorists "evildoers".
Assuming you didn't mistake him for John Ashcroft, you mistook him for Governor McGreevey of New Jersey (who, faced with mounting corruption charges, admitted that he cheated on his wife with another man.)
I thought the video was funny, but too many gay jokes. They should have dropped either McGreevey or Ashcroft. (In the interest of humor, I'd say keep Ashcroft. He's more well known, and his gay bit was funnier.)
> I mean, what supposedly was written on the paper? "Don't forget Poland!"?
If Bush was allowed a cheat sheet, he would probably load it up with choice quotes from Kerry. You see, then he'd have a counter for everything Kerry says.;-)
They're calling for a Muhammad Luther to nail some objections to the door of the mosque then?
I think that's exactly it, give or take. The guy who runs the site isn't a muslim himself, but he does point out and link to stories that indicate that some cultural reform is needed. (Not that that's the only topic of the site, mind you.)
Hm? LGF isn't a white supremacist site. The most controversial social commentary they make is to point out that Islamic/Arab culture seriously needs reform. But you can't object to that unless you also think the Catholic Reformation and Women's Rights were bad ideas.
Also, extending some troops' tours of duty is hardly equivalent to any kind of Draft. Especially since their service obligation generally extends past their tour of duty, and they agreed to any kind of "stop loss" call when they signed up.
Still, it is a bit of a stretch to think that we invaded Iraq to fend off the Euro. I'd like to see some hard evidence before spending more time entertaining the thought.
Oh, and one thing we both forgot to mention is the state of the European Union's economy. According to this article, it's been growing much slower that the US's -- and that in 2003, the US GDP per capita was 55 per cent higher than the EU's.
Slashdot Mirror
and finally...
Seems flip-floppish to me. He also seems to think that the strongest military in the world can't do two things at once.
> Maybe when an appropriate amount of bug-repellant has worked in the past we shouldn't drown ourselves in it because of a single failure.
Indeed -- just because 3000 people died in simultaneous coordinated attack doesn't mean that we should step up our efforts at all.
Just because there are groups of people that are sworn to our destruction, doesn't mean we should do anything about it.
> Hey I have some elephant repellent here to sell you, it causes cancer but hey you dont see any elephants around here do you so it must work.
So... let's shut down the CIA, the DHS, and the terrorism wing of the FBI? Do you have a similar attitude towards bugs and bug-repellant? Sunshine and sunscreen?
Fallacious logic indeed.
The only reason those odds are small is because of local and international efforts to keep them small.
Most of the stuff in the PATRIOT Act is non-controversial (it's a big piece of legislation). Letting two FBI agents, one on a criminal investigation and one on a terrorism investigation, share information -- does that strike you as controversial?
Furthermore, the following provisions of the PATRIOT Act expire on December 31st, 2005:A recent effort to avoid this expiration was shot down in flames.
> So if you are a comedian you have to be one 24/7? You never get any time off to just be a concerned citizen?
Jon takes plenty of "time off to just be a concerned citizen" on the Daily Show. He alternates between being serious and flippant on the show, or haven't you noticed?
If you want to laud one of his serious bits then he's all for it. But if you dare criticize one of his serious bits, suddenly he declares it all "just a comedy show".
I'm sure most of his fans don't consider it "just a comedy show".
Erm, no it's not. Any research they do stops when they have enough for a joke -- it's a comedy show.
Believe it or not, the Daily Show is rather shallow. If you really want some in-depth critiquing, I could recommend some nice political blogs.
> A little nation called Canada
It is little. It just has a huge backyard.
> Much closer (politically) to England than the states
But I don't hold that against them.
> STEWART: You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls.
If we can't criticize him because he's on Comedy Central, then why should we listen to any serious arguments from him, seeing as he's on Comedy Central?
You can't have it both ways, Jon. Either you make real commentary and open yourself up to critique, or you don't. It's kinda sleazy to expect people to take you seriously one moment, and hide behind the moniker of "satire" the next.
I hate to be a wet blanket, but neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are evil. The phrase "lesser of two evils" is used here as an analogy. Our two main parties are not the equivalent of the Nazis and the Stalinists.
I wonder if people who call our two main political parties "evil" are the same people who criticized President Bush for calling terrorists "evildoers".
The protestors' t-shirts did two things:
1) Implicitly argued that the President was curtailing Civil Liberties.
2) Identified the wearers as protestors (and thus uninvited to that private gathering).
> You can't let local ordinances (your misspelling is quite amusing in context) trump democracy.
So...
Undemocratic: Having your elected officials pass laws, and having some kind of police force enforce said laws.
Democratic: Letting a small group of people break what laws they want and intimidate the greater populace.
Gotcha.
Whereas the Democrats are so anti-voter-suppression that they even encourage dead people to vote.
;-)
Wait, I'm sorry, I should have said "living-impaired people".
> or face shape. (I mean, come on, what is a guy supposed to do about that?)
;-)
Erm... get mocked about Botox injections instead?
Rural sidewalk? I thought it was in an interview in Rolling Stone magazine.
Though I also seem to recall Kerry calling a Secret Service agent a "Son of a Bitch" for allegedly knocking him over while snowboarding.
Eh.
> Unless you saw 6 insults to Bush I missed, which I doubt, but please point them out to me if I did.
#1 - Ashcroft admits he's gay. (A play on his supposed homophobia.)
#2 - Supreme Court says they might have to decide the election outcome. (Reference to the myth that the Supreme Court stole the election for Bush.)
#3 - Cheney swears. (Only swore publically once, as did Kerry.)
But you missed one against Kerry: Kerry says he's "sensitive"
Also, I don't think that was Tom Daschle.
> Daschle says he's gay (gay ref #4),
Assuming you didn't mistake him for John Ashcroft, you mistook him for Governor McGreevey of New Jersey (who, faced with mounting corruption charges, admitted that he cheated on his wife with another man.)
I thought the video was funny, but too many gay jokes. They should have dropped either McGreevey or Ashcroft. (In the interest of humor, I'd say keep Ashcroft. He's more well known, and his gay bit was funnier.)
Also, I thought that jab at McCain was a RIOT.
> I mean, what supposedly was written on the paper? "Don't forget Poland!"?
;-)
If Bush was allowed a cheat sheet, he would probably load it up with choice quotes from Kerry. You see, then he'd have a counter for everything Kerry says.
I think that's exactly it, give or take. The guy who runs the site isn't a muslim himself, but he does point out and link to stories that indicate that some cultural reform is needed. (Not that that's the only topic of the site, mind you.)
Okay, then, his cultural reference was really dated. At least he didn't brag about his collection or something.
Hm? LGF isn't a white supremacist site. The most controversial social commentary they make is to point out that Islamic/Arab culture seriously needs reform. But you can't object to that unless you also think the Catholic Reformation and Women's Rights were bad ideas.
Also, extending some troops' tours of duty is hardly equivalent to any kind of Draft. Especially since their service obligation generally extends past their tour of duty, and they agreed to any kind of "stop loss" call when they signed up.
Still, it is a bit of a stretch to think that we invaded Iraq to fend off the Euro. I'd like to see some hard evidence before spending more time entertaining the thought.
Oh, and one thing we both forgot to mention is the state of the European Union's economy. According to this article, it's been growing much slower that the US's -- and that in 2003, the US GDP per capita was 55 per cent higher than the EU's.
Funny, but sounds a bit dated.
Also, your sig...
(Though more likely it's Draft '(never))
> LET THE UNITED STATES IMPLODE
In other news, all other nations are wonderful and perfect. Also, the sky is falling.