Video: Ilario Pantano leaves Jon Stewart speechless (Update: DU surprised Pantano wasn’t fragged)
posted at 12:49 pm on July 11, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Outside the Beltway has it. Watch it and behold the flip side of the chickenhawk meme: faced with an actual combat vet, left-wing dragonslayer Jon Stewart has to sit there in silence and let him hold forth in defense of the war unchallenged. They’ve invested so much in the idea that the legitimacy of one’s position on Iraq depends upon whether one’s served that not only won’t they go after military hawks with hammer and tongs, they won’t go after them at all.
Sad. For Pantano too. In this case, the opposite of contempt isn’t respect; it’s patronization.
Update: They’re just getting warmed up. Keep an eye on this one.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
I am more impressed each time I see this Marine!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on July 11, 2006 at 1:12 PM
Call me ignorant, but I didn’t see it that way. I dont know what preceeded this interview and have never watched Stewart’s show, so I am ignorant.
As an observer of only what is shown, it didnt seem patronizing to me, it might even do some good. Pass this around.
shooter on July 11, 2006 at 1:23 PM
I thought it was a thoughtful interview. Yes, Jon Stewart panders to a left wing crowd all of the time.
To me, it wasnt that Jon Stewart didnt interrupt. I thought he was very respectful. His wildly leftist audience sat on their hands in the studio with only a titter of laughter at the mention of Abu Ghraib.
BelchSpeak on July 11, 2006 at 1:32 PM
He was respectful. My point is, he wouldn’t have been nearly as respectful if Pantano’s words were coming out of the mouth of someone who hadn’t been in combat.
Why? What difference should it make to the merits of the argument for or against the war if the arguer served or not?
Allahpundit on July 11, 2006 at 1:34 PM
Yeah. Maybe they think, and deeply want to believe, that soldiers like Pantano are victims. Maybe they were respectful because of their misplaced sympathies.
BelchSpeak on July 11, 2006 at 1:38 PM
Because everything that isn’t from an Iraq veteran is inheirantly second hand.
Robb H on July 11, 2006 at 1:44 PM
S! to Pantano…
and I hate to say it…
S! to Stewart… I didn’t see this as patronizing at all… and trust me, I am NOT a Stewart fan…
As to the other issue….
We need MORE people who have been there to speak on subjects like this… and less politicians, pundits, “experts”, and media talking heads. I’ll bet less than .1% of the media accounts about Iraq come from people there, and the other 99.9% come from people here in the states…
Romeo13 on July 11, 2006 at 1:48 PM
Wow, the DU is going nuts.
Chas on July 11, 2006 at 2:02 PM
I see your point AP. So our(the RIGHT side) new weapon is to have only ‘those who’ve been there’ do all the talking…but there just are not enough of them. While Coulters point, a correct point I add, is the left chooses the ’sufferers’ as quislings to opine, sufferers that we CAN NOT argue with.
I agree with AP-Truth should be truth no matter the utterer.
.
Think about this for a moment-
Communication occurs in the mind of the receiver!
This is why some will never truly ‘hear’.
shooter on July 11, 2006 at 2:05 PM
Sorry, have to disagree with you shooter.
One of the LARGE problems we have in America today is the amount of people who spout opinions WITH NO BASIS IN FACT! They read somthing, or heard somthing, or somtimes (like the NYT and Dan Rather) just kind of made stuff up. The Press today will print any Talking heads or politicians opinion as long as it fits their agenda…
There is SO much yelling and screaming going on in the media, that it is hard to sift the wheat from the chaff… the only way is to take into account the speakers credentials in that arena… and the more uncredentialed speakers we have, even if they are right, the more the media will print other uncredentialed speakers…
Best bet? REPEAT what folks like Pantano are saying… that way you use THEIR credentials to validate your opinion.
Romeo13 on July 11, 2006 at 2:26 PM
The DUmmies are all atwitter. But I won’t question their patriotism.
For those who make the lame assertion you can’t comment
on military affairs if you haven’t served, I suggest a compromise. Only those who served have the right to vote.
That’s fair, right?
This way, the idiots lefties will be reduced from minority status to extinction, save a few moonbat districts around Berzerkeley, Madison and Cambridge. I doubt the men in uniform you shot on every day will be voting for your candidates.
If you don’t agree to that, then just STFU and STFD.
JammieWearingFool on July 11, 2006 at 2:32 PM
Allahpundit:
Allahpundit and others on this thread are correct. The truth is the truth, regardless of who says it.
However, in defense of Jon Stewart, I think he is being honest with his own internal logic, flawed though it is. The arguement being, that unless you have served in Iraq, your arguements in favor of the war are automatically void. But since Pantano HAS served in Iraq, by this logic, his arguements have validity. And thus JS finds himself forced by his own logicical construct to be respectful to Pantano’s arguements.
And although I understand Allahpundits disagreement with JS reasoning, as I said earlier, at least JS is being logically consistant with his “chickenhawk” line of reasoning. Because many of those on the left aren’t even able to measure up to this meager standard.
Many a time on different threads I have watched this miserable logical hypocrisy play out. A lefty will be arguing against the war. A righty will argue in favor of it. The lefty will ask if the righty is in Iraq, or has served in Iraq. The righty will say no, he is a civillian. And then you will hear the lefty triumphantly squawk “Chickenhawk!!!”
But if the righty says, no, I’m in the Army, but I’m not in Iraq, and I haven’t been in Iraq, well then the lefty just says “well, since you didn’t volunteer to be in Iraq, you’re still a…Chickenhawk!!!”
But if the righty says, well, I did volunteer for Iraq, but the army denied my request and kept me States-side, then the lefty will simply say, “well, you didn’t try hard-enough to get to Iraq, so, you’re still a Chickenhawk!!!”
Well, eventually, a righty will say, yes, I am in Iraq, or I have been in Iraq, on the front lines, with plenty of firefights under my belt. I’ve been there and seen the elephant. And I support the war in Iraq. Will the typical lefty then give respectful attention to this guys arguements, like Jon Stewart had the decency to do? No. If anything, the lefty’s response will be even more venomous, with cries of “You’ve been duped!!!” or “You drank the cool-aid!!!” or “War-monger!!! Baby-killer!!! War-criminal!!! Fascist!!!” Which is what is going on right now at the DU thread that Allahpundit linked us to.
Which is why even though I think that Jon Stewart is guilty of a logical fallacy, I think he is honest enough to accept it when it leads him to a conclusion he doesn’t really like. Where as some moonbat would call Pantano a chicken-hawk as loud as possible up until the moment it was revealed that Pantano had served in Iraq, whereupon without batting an eye, the moonbat will switch to calling him a baby-killer, or words to that effect.
Why is Jon Stewart like this? I don’t know. I guess I can only speculate that JS has a underlying foundation of human decency that is built into him, as opposed to some of the deranged moonbats on the far-left who seem poisoned with hatred and intolerance. Jon Stewart to me seems like someone who is on the other side of the political divide from me, but is still a good person at heart, and is someone who could be trusted to watch your kids as a baby sitter. Where as I would never, ever let Dr. Frisch anywhere near my kids unsupervised for any reason. Dr. Frisch will threaten a two year old child with comparisons to JonBenet Ramsey in order to get to her political opponent. I don’t think Jon Stewart would.
EFG on July 11, 2006 at 2:58 PM
works for me… But then again, I read StarShip Troopers long before I served….
Romeo13 on July 11, 2006 at 3:04 PM
JS can’t win with you spinmeisters. He gives a respectful interview, and you say, “He wouldn’t have done it if the guy weren’t a vet!” If he had challenged Pantano more, you’d say, “He’s disrespecting our vets! What a cad!” JS emphasiezed what he wanted to: the war presents difficult if not impossible moral choices to soldiers; and soldiers are questioning/discussing why they are there. I think what is most revealing about the interview is the main reason soldiers fight is not for ideology, but for each other.
Vanya on July 11, 2006 at 3:41 PM
It’s not either/or. You can challenge and be respectful. He just sat there silently for five minutes.
Allahpundit on July 11, 2006 at 3:43 PM
Uh, Vanya? I re-read all of the comments after I read yours, and I don’t think your “spinmeisters” comment is really fair or accurate. I think the people here have been reasoned and respectful in their comments. Allahpundit isn’t doing an ad-homme attack on JS. He is questioning the logic behind JS and his approach. And what is wrong with that? AP said this about JS:
If you dispute his arguement, perhaps you might want to try this arguement: “The merits of someone’s arguement for or against the war who HAS served in Iraq have greater value to me, because this person has had first-had experience with the actual environment of Iraq, and is thus in a better position to give an accurate assesment as to whether or not we are winning the battle to bring democracy and peace to the people of Iraq.” Or words to that effect. Which is not to say that my above hypothetical arguement is 100% true. I just think it is a better approach.
.
.
Because the whole “spinmeister” thing could be interpreted as a drive by attack, or an attempt to stir up trouble.
.
.
Just sayin’.
EFG on July 11, 2006 at 3:57 PM
Allahpundit:
Because that is the way it is Allah. His opinion is as unquestionable as Muthas is to liberals and the MSM. Why do you think the MSM will not show a black person against immigration? We have the credibility to say “No this is not about civil rights this is an attempted hijack by mexican socialists”. Why because black peole started the civil rights movement and bore the pain and struggle for all minorities.
Theworldisnotenough on July 11, 2006 at 3:58 PM
I think we have a DU winner:
30. nothing about that asshole was admirable
He is a murdering, lieing, living monster who should be taken out back and shot.
It should be gone shortly, but you have to wonder about a group that has rules that specifically state:
Do not post messages that could be construed as advocating violence or military defeat against the United States, the U.S. military, US service people, or the people of the United States.
Do not post broad-brush smears against US service people. Do not blame the troops for the mistakes of their officers or their Commander-in-Chief. Show the appropriate level of respect to those individuals who have put their own lives on the line to defend this country.
rw on July 11, 2006 at 4:00 PM
Oh I also liked the interview. Ilario commanded the respect of John Stewart and his audience. Lets not criticize John Stewart. Ilario dominated the entire interview and set. That is what made John Stewart “sit on his hands”. What was he going to do grill him and get harpooned on his own show? As left as John Stewart is claimed to be (I do not watch tv so I could be wrong) it would make sense that he would not even have Ilario on in the first place. Besides he is just a comedian. I want to see Ilario commenting about the war in Congress. A patriotic, pro war hispanic *gasp* what will the liberals do?!?!?
Theworldisnotenough on July 11, 2006 at 4:04 PM
HAHA. They can not have their kook base making them look as crazy as they really are. HAHA. Don’t blame troops blame the administration at the expense of the troops. Yes that will work much better…
Theworldisnotenough on July 11, 2006 at 4:06 PM
I saw Pantano on Lardball, uh, I mean, Hardball last night. I was immediately impressed. Matthews told him to go to law school.
BirdEye on July 11, 2006 at 4:09 PM
I agree with EFG’s assessment above. Well said.
mikeyboss on July 11, 2006 at 4:12 PM
Also, having seen the video, I must say, Stewart, whom I highly dislike, was very respectful of the great American who was sitting directly across from him in that interview. Kudos to Stewart for playing fair.
BirdEye on July 11, 2006 at 4:19 PM
Anyone can express their views on the Iraqi conflict. That’s as it should be. I, however, give more credibility to the views and opinions of those who have actually served in that arena, as opposed to someone who gets all their information from some other source.
Chief1942 on July 11, 2006 at 5:01 PM
I have to agree that Jon was very respectful during the interview.
What I think some people here are seeing as condescending silence was in fact solid interviewing. It looked to me like Jon simply would throw a question or comment to him and then step back and allow him the floor to speak, uninterrupted, about the question or comment. Once he appeared to have fully answered or explained his position Jon would simply throw something else out to him to comment on. Very well done on his part. I was actually suprised.
I honestly believe had it been O’Reily or Hannity interviewing this guy he would have been cut off mid-comment and redirected in a way that either interviewer wanted him to go in, rather than just letting him speak his mind.
I’m wondering if the heat the left has been getting about their disdain/disrespect for the troops is the reason he conducted himself that way or if Jon actually found his comments interesting enough that he wanted to hear him out. Either way I enjoyed it, hopefully some of those people in the audience and viewing at home will take what he said, digest it, and learn from it, I won’t be holding my breath though.
Grunt2Jag on July 11, 2006 at 5:06 PM
For every veteran of the Iraq war who supports the war, I can find one who is against it. So giving more credibility to someone who has been there doesn’t make much difference. An individual soldier’s experiences in Iraq are going to be anecdotal. Better to look at the whole picture. After 3 years, there are still 2 soldiers dying every day, and dozens of Iraqi civilians. Milions of dollars being lost or squandered every day. I don’t see much progress.
Vanya on July 11, 2006 at 5:22 PM
Vanya,
I live in the DC area and I know LOTS of soldiers and vets of the Iraq war. In fact, I live near an army base and I can hardly avoid it. Add to that the fact that my dad’s a retired officer and I literally grew up around the military.
I doubt you know ANY, based on your comment. You lefties love to pretend you know people in the military. Anyone who actually does know these folks can see right through you.
Chas on July 11, 2006 at 5:45 PM
It will honestly be hard for you to see the progress that’s being amde over there when the media refuses to report it, or on the rare instances it does it’s labelled propaganda and dismissed outright. If you know service members on both sides of the argument have you asked them about the progress? I have, and have yet to hear none is being made as you assert. The problem seems to be to be that your side doesn’t want ‘progress’ it wants ‘out’. And right now that just isn’t realistic.
Being a vet, I said before this war ever started (the Afgan phase first and the Iraq phase later) that if we commit to this that we will be in those countries for at least eight years, if not more. For some reason people think you can run in, topple and entire government, and skip on home all in a week or two. I have no idea why. History has taught us otherwise. Germany after WWII had an insurgency. There were assassination. There were bombings. There were kidnappings. Everything that we are seeing now in Iraq was seen there. It took about seven years for a functional government to be in place and running the country. And after that, due to the climate of Europe, we stayed in force as a military, and continue to even now, though in much smaller numbers.
In order for this to be ‘done’ the government must be able to stand up on it’s own. And once they are able to the military will pull out, simple as that. The only thing that will keep us in the country will be if their government asks us to stay in some capacity, or if our government asks for permission to keep people stationed there as a strategic site and their government agrees.
Grunt2Jag on July 11, 2006 at 6:00 PM
Ilario sounds like the kind of guy you would want leading you in any endeavour (not just combat). Wonder if someday we see him being discussed for Secretary of Defense or other key appointment.
havok on July 11, 2006 at 6:03 PM
Grunt2jag, too bad Bush didn’t ask your advice before he invaded. Maybe then he wouldn’t have told us the war would be over quickly and we could pay for it all with Iraqi oil. We stayed in Europe to keep the Soviets out, not because of the “climate of Europe” (which is about to heat up). So we will stay in Iraq to keep Iran, or Islamic fundamentalists, or someone, out. We will have forces there propping up whatever gov’t there is for many years. Which is what Osama and co. want us to do.
Vanya on July 11, 2006 at 7:30 PM
Mr. Pantano is an outstanding young Man. I am not surprised he has shown the guts and determination every American should admire. He served admirably. He was taken to task by his own service and found innocent of any crimes. And yet he still feels love and trust in the US Marine Corps and his country.
There are few Men who can serve, twice, in combat, be accused by the service they love of murder, and then continue to love and honor that service through your every day routine and life as if they had not wronged you. It takes a Big Man to be able to do that.
Mr. Pantano is one of them. The last time I heard of a Man such as this was when I read about Gen. Robert E. Lee. Honor is Mr. Pantano’s watchword. And Service is his lot in Life.
God Bless LT Pantano. I wish we had more Men like him.
Subsunk
Subsunk on July 11, 2006 at 7:44 PM
Vanya, as I recall Bush said that the war (the entire war, not just the battles in Afghanistan and Iraq) would take a long time, and that we would have to stand firm in our resolve to win.
Also, why can you not respond to his statement? Instead you pull out “standard bush bash answer #34″
Your comment abut bush is irrelavant. What is relavant is your earlier statement about producing 1 vet against the war for every vet against it.
I live in Norfolk Va, and we have a fairly large milatary base. I have met quite a few people that went over their, and they all support the war (about 85 or so that I have talked to at the University and local bars).
Unless you are counting frauds like Watanada or Macbeth, I do not think your argument is valid.
Wyrd on July 11, 2006 at 7:58 PM
Vanya,
Let me address each one individually so you can follow along.
“Maybe then he wouldn’t have told us the war would be over quickly and we could pay for it all with Iraqi oil.”
The ground war was over quickly, a matter of days actually. What they have been dealing with since is an insurgency. The enemy fighters are not an organized military, they are the remnents of the loyalists to the former regime and foreigners that are willing to take up their cause. What Bush referred to was the force on force combat between the army of Saddam and the US forces. The ‘War on Terror’ continues in the broad sense, but the ground war against the Iraqi army is over.
“We stayed in Europe to keep the Soviets out, not because of the “climate of Europe” (which is about to heat up).”
Only partially true. The ‘climate of Europe’ I referred to wasn’t simply the Russians sitting on the doorstep of eastern Europe, it was also the weakened state militarily of the western European states to defend themselves. After years of occupation and war countries and been decimated in all aspects of infrastructure, economy, and labor. Our being on the lines in Germany was to be a buffer against the Russians, to be sure, but it also allowed those countries to reconstitute and reorganize so that they would be able to defend themselves should the need ever arise again. Nice attempt at throwing the environmental whacko line in there though. I assume though from your sentiments that WWII didn’t actually end in 1945 when the accords were signed and Berlin fell. It actually ended in 1952 or thereabouts? I mean, after all, that’s when their government was acutally able to function without us for the most part, and the bulk of the insurgency ended. Should we have tallied those casualties against those of the total war as well? If your reasoning stands, we should, as even though the declared war was over, casualties still occured.
“So we will stay in Iraq to keep Iran, or Islamic fundamentalists, or someone, out. We will have forces there propping up whatever gov’t there is for many years.”
I’ve already said that. And anyone on either side that didn’t see that coming is a fool. You don’t erase an entire countries infrastructure and expect to be out in a short time. Won’t happen, unless done wrong of course. This was a jaunt in the desert, it was a campaign that required a long term commitment. To say you are shocked or outraged that we aren’t out and done in a year, two, or even three smacks to me of the same intelligence and logic that spews from people claiming they didn’t know that smoking cigarettes for decades would be harmful to their health. I simply can’t believe that level of stupid could possibly exist. We will do what we have to there, for as long as we have to there, because once things get into motion you must stand behind your decisions and see things through, even if the road is tough. To do anything less (especially in this situation) would makes things a thousand times worse. But I think your side would actually like that, sad as it is to say.
“Which is what Osama and co. want us to do.”
Sadly, I think your side knows exactly what he wants, and are willing to anything to see that he succeeds.
Your pal,
Grunt2Jag on July 11, 2006 at 8:07 PM
One other comment on the ‘climate of Europe’ (I ran out of time at work and had to cut short, my apologies) is that it wasn’t just the armies of Russia that the west was concerned with that had us placed there strategically, it was the concern that Communism would spread as well. Not simply the armies of a communist country, but the ideology as well. So yes, we were (even when I served in Germany in the late 80’s) a speed bump to prevent the Soviets from running west, but we were also originally put in place to stop the ideology from running there as well. Amongst other things of course. There is no one simple answer as to why we were there, as in most things there are many layers.
Grunt2Jag on July 11, 2006 at 9:23 PM
Vanya said:
Vanya, you’re lying.
You should quit while you’re “even.” You don’t know squat.
—
I have read Lt. Pantano’s book, Warlord. It is well written, riveting even. My son was in Iraq in the rotation that relieved Lt. Pantano’s one. For a two week period, they were serving less than 10 miles apart.
After reading Lt. Pantano’s book, and his depiction of Marine life in 2004 Iraq, I started asking my son some questions, given his meritorious mast and the two written “attaboys” his CO mailed to us, one from another unit’s CO to which he was temporarily assigned.
Men like Lt. Pantano are leaders that we cannot afford to lose. The DU crowd is insane, as we all understand. And it is because of the leftist’s open hatred similar to that expressed after Lt. Pantano’s TV appearences this week, coupled with those coming from jihadis overseas that convinced him to resign his commission to take care of his family — who were directly and personally threatened with violence, too.
Read the book and judge for yourself exactly how much our nation lost when Pantano resigned his commission.
My 2 cents.
georgej on July 12, 2006 at 5:29 AM
The discussion wasn’t so much about the merits of the war, but rather if the troops weighed or considered or debated the merits of the war or its methods. And a civilian can’t speak to that as well as someone who has been over there talking with the troops and getting to know them on an intimate level.
Mark Jaquith on July 12, 2006 at 7:42 AM
Also agreed. Jon Stewart, while a left-winger, is willing to listen to what people have to say if it isn’t outright B.S. or party-line talk.
That’s a given… an interview with either of those people isn’t so much an interview as a forced extraction of desired sound bites, followed by back patting and emphatic claims of impartiality. Blech. The constraints of ad-supported television and the frenetic pace of Fox News-esque style commentary shows make complete and honest interviews impossible. I’d rather read an editorial.
Mark Jaquith on July 12, 2006 at 7:52 AM
Vanya, that’s one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read.
Pantano is of Italian descent, not that it ought to matter, aside from your point that the left would hate him that much more if he were.
Pablo on July 12, 2006 at 10:33 AM
Pablo, read this analysis of Al Qaeda’s long-term strategy (on a conservative blog):
alqaeda
Osama wants to bleed us dry of resources and will by engaging us in wars we can’t win halfway around the world. Their strategic plan spans generations. Our long term plans don’t go beyond the next election.
Vanya on July 12, 2006 at 2:01 PM
Psychotic ranting aside, what is it with these people and their aversion to spelling words correctly? Easy words, like “lying” are too advanced for them, apparently. And then there’s the promiscuous use of commas. I think Mark Steyn once referred to it as “commas interruptus” or something of that nature.
I know this is a pedantic complaint. Sorry.
violet on July 12, 2006 at 3:47 PM
Hmmmmm….
I was in Iraq in 2003 as an active duty Marine, same as Pantano, and I blog about my support for the Iraq war. While I’ve always considered my combat experience to be germaine to the debate, I’m careful to deflect any praise with my standard reply, “I’m no hero, though I did serve with a few.”
As the joke goes: How many vets does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A: You don’t know, man. You weren’t there!
There’s some truth there that goes beyond chickenhawker reverence. Or flip-side patronizing.
Kadnine on July 12, 2006 at 5:03 PM
Great post. And both Pantano and Stewart did an excellent job IMO -
RD on July 12, 2006 at 10:30 PM
Comment pages: