Jon Stewart: You know who was a war criminal? Harry Truman

posted at 9:43 pm on April 29, 2009 by Allahpundit

Via Goldfarb, the key exchange comes at around 5:50. Hundreds of thousands of lives saved by averting a U.S. invasion of the Japanese home islands, and all this tool can do is point a finger and mumble “yes” in response to whether Truman’s a war criminal or not. Behold the face of mindless anti-torture absolutism. Like what you see?

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart M – Th 11p / 10c
Cliff May Unedited Interview Pt. 2
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Economic Crisis First 100 Days

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


Stewart said Hiroshima would have been a-ok, if we had first detonated a bomb 15 miles out to sea or something. THEN, if Japan hadn’t surrendered, bombs away.

But doesn’t it follow from the logic of his argument that Nagasaki was permissable, since the Jap’s hadn’t surrendered after Hiroshima? It’s a bit counter-intuituve that Hiroshima would be wrong but Nagasaki not wrong.

Sean68 on April 30, 2009 at 1:12 AM

progressoverpeace on April 30, 2009 at 12:37 AM

Thanks for your response. My guess is that I would want you fighting for our country. Given my condition, I was not inducted and never served in the armed forces, so I have attempted to serve in other ways. Therefore, we come to such issues from very different perspectives.

I have to rely on the judgment of experienced and skilled strategists and fighters to defend our country. But I like being able to promote the ideals for which our country should stand.

So again, I cannot agree that war is an amoral, natural force. We are not merely animals, as you yourself say when you talk about us being a fair people. Nature is not fair. And we must do our best to maintain our humanness, with a moral compass, even under the most difficult of circumstances.

To some extent, my sense is you are reserving the right to do what is necessary to win, even though you either don’t want or intend to cross certain lines that you would prefer remain unwritten. And in a life threatening emergency, this is the sort of approach I know is often needed. I don’t like it, but it is the way it is.

And I don’t mean protecting old fools like me; but young people, so they at least have an opportunity to live and make a better world for themselves and those to come.

So, I will always focus on the moral purpose of life, and you may find my approach naive, old-fashioned, or irritating. But as I could not fight my way out of a paper bag, that is part of the way I try to serve. And I am glad that there are others, like yourself, who can serve in other ways.

Loxodonta on April 30, 2009 at 1:16 AM

With all of the talk of the atomic bombs, let us not forget the 100,000 + who were incinerated in the Tokyo firebombing raids. The firebombings were largely designed to kill civilians and destroy small factories. Likewise, the Dresden bombings were largely designed to kill civilians and may have resulted in the deaths of some 25,000 German civilians.

Those are two specific events of great significance but upon their occurrence were not used to discredit the totality of our wartime effort.

So it is curious that given the rather mild prospect of water boarding, eavesdropping and other relatively mild intrusions that these have become the stock and trade of those that want to discredit our war effort.

moxie_neanderthal on April 30, 2009 at 1:17 AM

Jon Stewart doesn’t have a clue…

Anyone who thinks Club Gitmo is a ‘stain on our national honor’ should take the time to read this…

The next time anybody wails and moans about ‘belly-slapping’ and ‘water boarding’, refer them to the above article.

As to the Truman issue…he saved Japan from it’s leaders. If Coronet or Olympic had gone off as planned [the code names for two invasion plans for the Japanese home islands], Japan as we know it today would not exist.

CPT. Charles on April 30, 2009 at 1:19 AM

In any case: can we have a quick epilogue to this story that involves a quick trial and execution of these turbaned turds?

Sean68 on April 30, 2009 at 1:19 AM

OK once again I know Jon Stewart. He is a kind, gracious man who is very bright. He and I disagree on so many things, but he is a good man. He is a very good man and you may disagree with him politically, but there is no cause to make it personal. I am very glad to know him.

I know he is also very generous with his time and his money and does many worthwhile causes and unlike Sean Penn, and the rest of those hyenas he does it quietly with no fan fare. He is a good and decent man. He does not deserve some of these personalized comments made at him.

Jdripper on April 29, 2009 at 10:27 PM

I’m sorry. I’m sure you’re a nice guy and I respect your opinion, but at the same time I think Stewart deserves all the vitriol directed at him and more.

The guy demands to be taken seriously (and make no mistake he does demand it) yet every time I’ve seen him he is incapable of making a coherent argument, and instead falls back on repeating the same catchphrases over and over, acting exasperated for no reason, making faces…all calculated to get a rise out of his sophmoric Amen Corner in the studio and out in TV Land, so he can sit back smugly and say to himself “I won”.

As for bright…the points he’s trying to make COULD be defended in a coherent and logical manner. He’d be wrong, and a decent, informed debater who disagreed could pokes holes in him, but Stewart doesn’t even try. Instead he falls back on his little parlor tricks, and goes for the easy laugh and cheer from his sycophantic audience. Pathetic.

Notice how he never answered May’s question about the Geneva Convenmtion-if you abide by Geneva Convention rules with terrorists-then you get no info out of them…period, nothing, nada. Simple enough for a child to understand, but Stewart just ignores him and goes back to his little games.

As far as your plea to play nice with him. Cmon, I mean really. Glass houses and all that. I’ve no respect for the man-I have more respect for a moron like Michael Moore, than for Mr. Stewart.

Dreadnought on April 30, 2009 at 1:21 AM

Thank you for the compliment, and I must say that I likewise find you a notch above most here.

Turtler on April 30, 2009 at 1:07 AM

Ah. Finally something you have written with which I can disagree.

I know of no human being to whom I am superior.

Now that we have had our first disagreement, please continue posting.

Loxodonta on April 30, 2009 at 1:26 AM

No, it is not. It [war] is fifty trillion decisions and hundreds,thousands,millions of people on the field all coming together at the same time.

Virtually ever single event in the larger “event” is the product of a choice, be it one to flank left, flank right, cut a civilian’s flank, etc.

As thus, while most is out of the hands of any one individual, it is hardly amoral.

We don’t control the choices of the other side, nor how committed they are to the fight, or what kind of fight they deem appropriate. We can have a sense of reciprocity (plus a large penalty for taking our choices away and forcing us into this behavior) but that is different from a static definition of something being ‘moral’ in all contexts.

Golda Meir said, “I can forgive the arabs for killing our children, but I cannot forgive them for making us kill theirs.”

It may take two to tango, but it only takes one to force a war.

But does this not by necessity involve morality, personal choices, and honor in addition to political and stategic factors?

Well, I certainly have a good amount of faith in America and Americans, that they are doing whatever is necessary to secure our population. I used to have this faith … Actually, I found the memos to be a bit distressing in how soft we were in our interrogations. I am hoping that we were doing other things. I mean, this is the CIA we’re talking about! They’re our spies! Heh.

But do certain atrocities, certain acts, not warrant retaliation and utter ruin for the aggressor?
Does a murderer not forfeit his/her well being or life by their actions?

Sure. But they are first and foremost guilty of being the enemy, and whatever they cost us. If there are other things they did that disgust us then that should be handled, but done reasonably. Instead of holding joke trials, like Nuremberg, and trying to make some ill-conceived, concrete, “moral” law that the enemy has broken so that we can show what bad people they are, just hold them guilty of being the enemy in a losing war, declare them “disgusting persons” (an executive declaration), or whatever and issue them sentences out of the military command (as the Pres is CinC, anyway). That’s it. They deserve nothing more, and we owe them nothing.

We are a fair people, by nature, and have been more than fair in our treatment of every enemy we’ve ever faced. [ … ]

True, but does this mean we must sink to their level, to the level of open murder, of mass rape, of ethnic cleansing?

Our army has never done rape in anything comparable to what just about every other army on Earth has done, and does. We’ve never been in the ballpark on that. Ethnic cleansing, if you mean moving ethnic groups, is supported by us and the UN and everyone. They just don’t like certain types of ethnic cleansing. It’s okay to kick all the Jews out of Gaza or the West Bank, but it’s wrong to kick arabs out of Israel, or out of the West bank or Gaza. The UN has been one of the big proponents of ethnic transfer (which is cleansing, basically) in many instances.

But, as I’ve pointed out, we threaten annihilation when we deem it necessary.

Sometimes, in a street fight, biting your attacker’s ear off is the civilized and proper thing to do. That doesn’t mean that you will go around biting ears off from then on.

True, but does this not fall into a form of morality in “Let the Punishment fit the crime” and “Do not strike the innocent?”

Turtler on April 30, 2009 at 12:54 AM

Yes, I believe in reciprocity+. Defining “the innocent” is a sticky point, often. I hold the whole enemy poluation resonsible for whatever threats come out of them. I don’t control them, so that’s how that has to be. They are their own responsibility, as we are ours.

I don’t advocate pulling fingernails off to find out how much somebody paid for his sunglasses, but there certainly are situations where I hope someone is pulling fingernails off, if need be.

progressoverpeace on April 30, 2009 at 1:28 AM

Obviously, you are misinterpreting what my “moralistic arguments” are.

Turtler on April 30, 2009 at 1:04 AM

I understand your view. I know that you have a very serious attitude about war. I might have already said this above but I agree with you on the point of proportionality. We might just have different senses of the proper proportion.

I trust our society to know what is proper, but I am a bit disturbed by rapid onset of this new veil of morality (not yours, but the lefties’ as expressed by Stewart) and think that it is important to stress that we can be forced to all sorts of levels to defend ourselves. That is nature. And to acknowledge what the Cold War entailed, including the present moment, which the lefties never want to address because their views are so incredibly naive and stupid.

In the end, on the moral question, I trust that our society would not elect to do anything so evil – the same way that I don’t think my best friend would murder people, even if I told him that he might have to murder someone, if the context presented itself and forced it. I could be wrong about trusting ourselves, but if I were, what would any laws matter, anyway?

progressoverpeace on April 30, 2009 at 1:42 AM

To some extent, my sense is you are reserving the right to do what is necessary to win, even though you either don’t want or intend to cross certain lines that you would prefer remain unwritten. And in a life threatening emergency, this is the sort of approach I know is often needed. I don’t like it, but it is the way it is.

Loxodonta on April 30, 2009 at 1:16 AM

That’s a good summation, for me – though I’m a bit harsher, I would say. It’s not so much that some things should remain unwritten, but that the way people think of writing them up gets too divorced from reality to have much value, if not actually be destructive. i.e. ‘No law’ is better than ‘selectively enforced law’.

progressoverpeace on April 30, 2009 at 1:52 AM

At the cost of 200,000 innocent Japanese lives. Now that’s Christian, eh?

Drum on April 29, 2009 at 11:03 PM

There were no innocent Japanese lives, you useless sack of cr*p. All of them were our enemies, just as all of us were their enemies.

During war, all 200,000 are worth less to me than one American life….except maybe yours.

iconoclast on April 30, 2009 at 2:02 AM

Truman can’t win. If he had dropped the A-bomb off the coast of Japan then Greenpeace and PETA would be all over him. That’s the problem with trying to please the fried Liberal 60’s mindset retreads they’re always going to find some way to blame their parents.

viking01 on April 30, 2009 at 2:10 AM

progressoverpeace on April 30, 2009 at 1:52 AM

It’s not so much that some things should remain unwritten, but that the way people think of writing them up gets too divorced from reality to have much value, if not actually be destructive. i.e. ‘No law’ is better than ’selectively enforced law’.

Might you be referring to gobbledygook, I mean nuance, such as this?

Obama gives nuanced defense of his stance on torture

In a strikingly defensive explanation of his stance on Bush-era anti-terrorism tactics, President Obama on Wednesday acknowledged for the first time that the harsh interrogation techniques he has banned might have yielded useful information, but that he was nonetheless willing to rule them out on moral grounds.

It was a nuanced performance as Obama walked viewers of his prime-time news conference through a policy that has led him to declare tactics such as waterboarding torture but to stop short of advocating prosecution of the architects of the practices.

Loxodonta on April 30, 2009 at 2:13 AM

All of which were provoked by German and Japanese aggression and war crimes.

Don’t demonize FDR for doing what had to be done. He does not deserve it, even for all his screw-ups with the New Deal.

Turtler on April 29, 2009 at 11:39 PM

Not the point of my post. I’m not demonizing America’s Most Beloved Facist for prosecuting the war the way he did; quite the contrary. The Second World War was the epitome of “Total War”; there could be no half measures, nor hesitancy to use the entire depth of the American arsenal to bring it to as swift a conclusion with as few American millitary casualties as possible while preventing American civillians from becoming casualties as well. I think Total War is the only way to fight ANY conflict. The moral imperitive upon our leaders is to keep our millitary casualties as low as possible, prevent American civillian casualties if possible by ANY MEANS NECCESSARY and bring the war to a lasting peace by crushing the enemies of this nation so totally that the very thought of making war against the United States illicits nothing more than revulsion and grim memories of shattered cities, ruination and suffering so great that such ideas are quickly dismissed as unthinkable.

What I was getting at was that as CinC, FDR, by Skidmark Stewie and people of his ilk’s peculiar logic, “murdered” more civs using conventional weapons than Truman did with A-Bombs, which by rational standards begs the question: Why’s Truman a “war criminal” but FDR’s some sort of Saint to such people?

I hope this clarifies my original statement.

SuperCool on April 30, 2009 at 2:18 AM

To say, we “executed” Japanese soldiers for “waterboarding” is

akin to saying we “executed” Timothy McVeigh for “littering!”

DSchoen on April 30, 2009 at 3:48 AM

Just wait. The ‘white/black prison ratio’ thing is coming.

johnnyU on April 30, 2009 at 5:29 AM

It is good to see somebody hand that prick’s head to him. John Stewart is a bully, who talks over people and makes stupid arguments loudly. His contention that anything outside the Geneva Conventions is torture does mean that we must throw open the doors of every prison immediately, lest we torture. It took some time, but finally this one point was made clear to him, and he was beaten into submission.

‘Bout time. This sort of thing should happen to this idiot on a daily basis. But he will never let that happen. He will always make sure he wins the argument in the end. And his audience of whooping, clapping morons will make sure as well.

gridlock2 on April 30, 2009 at 6:08 AM

We live in a very free (at least up till now) and comfortable country because of men like Harry Truman.

lizzee on April 30, 2009 at 6:10 AM

BTW, if we had not dropped the atomic bomb, the Japanese would have issued a sharpened stick to every man, woman and child, and demanded that we slaughter them all. I think an estimate of a Million Japanese dead in the event of a ground invasion is grossly optomistic. I think it is more likely that our boys would have had to slaughter up to half the population of the home islands.

And as for Jon Stewart’s fantasy that we could have compelled the Japanese to surrender if we dropped a bomb offshore, they did not surrender when we dropped a bomb on Hiroshima! We had to drop another one on Nagasaki to drive the point home. Then they surrendered.

Suppose we wasted a bomb killing fish, to assuage the conscience of the future Jon Stewarts of the World. Then we would have had to nuke Hiroshima, and we would have been all out of nuclear bombs. You just don’t nip down to the corner store to buy one of these things, at least not in 1945. So, what would we do if the Japanese did not capitulate after losing one city? Invade?

gridlock2 on April 30, 2009 at 6:14 AM

It is good to see somebody finally hand this prick his head. Jon Stewart is a bully who talks over people and plays to his crowd of whooping, clapping morons to silence debate.

It took a while, but finally Cliff May beat him into submission. His argument that the Geneva Conventions should apply to terrorists is just stupid. Everything Stewart knows about the Geneva Conventions he learned by watching Hogan’s Heros.

Here’s a news flash, Jon. It was a war crime for the Japanese to waterboard our soldiers because our soldiers were lawful combatants captured in uniform. But when we had men caught behind enemy lines out of uniform or in the enemies uniform, these men were summarily executed, and there was no crime to that at all. Them’s the rules.

Now, when Al Qaeda starts fighting in uniform and following the rules, maybe we can start treating their men according to the Geneva Conventions. But that is just not gonna happen, is it, Jon?

gridlock2 on April 30, 2009 at 6:20 AM

Suppose we wasted a bomb killing fish, to assuage the conscience of the future Jon Stewarts of the World. Then we would have had to nuke Hiroshima, and we would have been all out of nuclear bombs. You just don’t nip down to the corner store to buy one of these things, at least not in 1945. So, what would we do if the Japanese did not capitulate after losing one city? Invade?

gridlock2 on April 30, 2009 at 6:14 AM

According to General Leslie Groves, there would have been another bomb ready in August and more in September. Was the 3 day period between bombings sufficient for Japan to comprehend the magnitude of the damage in Hiroshima and factor in the Soviet invasion of Manchuria?

It is a difficult question, but either way it would be wrong to consider Truman a war criminal.

dedalus on April 30, 2009 at 7:00 AM

The strange thing is fools & idiots like Stewart and others get paid real money to say these foolish thing.Just like all the fools on Msnbc get paid big money to just plain lie every night.America what a country.

thmcbb on April 30, 2009 at 7:12 AM

Truman had the balls to do what needed to be done to save the world. Our leaders today face a simialr challange with islamofacism but are too sissified to man-up and bring the pain. Pussy assed beta males.

Alden Pyle on April 30, 2009 at 7:17 AM

It is good to see somebody finally hand Jon Stewart his head. Stewart is very good at silencing opposing arguments by talking over people and appealing to the whooping mob of mutants he calls an audience. But Cliff May just kept hammering away, until he finally beat Stewart into submission.

Stewarts arguments were, as always, stupid. The Geneva Convention does not apply in this case, because Al Qaeda is not a signatory and these soldiers were not fighting in uniform and according to the requirements of the convention. Strictly speaking, if we were to hamstring ourselves by applying the requirements of the Geneva Convention, we would have no choice but to release these enemy combatants immediately, because we are not at war with their country.

But Stewart knows what plays well to the crowd. Everything he knows about the Geneva Conventions, he learned from watching Hogan’s Heroes. But he doesn’t have to know anything to win an argument with his home crowd.

Frankly, I can respect his position that the US must be willing to absorb punishment in order maintain our standard of decency. The question is one of drawing the line. If he wants to draw the line at name, rank and serial number (except these guys don’t have rank or serial number), that is a reasonable position. But that would be our own policy, and it would have nothing to do with the Geneva Convention.

gridlock2 on April 30, 2009 at 7:21 AM

The use of harsh interrogation is one of those things that prick the conscience… If you are Jon Stewart.

gridlock2 on April 30, 2009 at 7:22 AM

Hmmm. It is interesting to see the list of words that will get your comment auto-deleted on a Jon Stewart thread…

gridlock2 on April 30, 2009 at 7:23 AM

Jon Stewart is showing his liberal education and total lack of knowledge of true military history. Fact: The battle of Okinawa killed 100,000 civilians (some historians say 300,000.) Civilian casualties in the invasion of Japan would have been in the millions. Fact: The firebomb raids on Tokyo killed more people than both atomic attacks. Tokyo people from that era think Hiroshima and Nagasaki residents are whiners. I know this because I lived in the Tokyo neighborhoods that suffered most in the Firebomb Raids during the 80s when many survivors were still alive. Note today when an A-bomb survivor dies in a car wreck, they are added to the A=bomb casualty list. Fact: The Japanese high command wanted to fight on after Nagasaki. It was the emperor who ended the war. Fact: One tank battle in Kursk, Russia, killed more than one million civilians. Operation Cornet, the planned invasion of Honshu, would have devastated the local civilians. We were planning to use every tank in our arsenal. Fact: George Marshal wanted to use multiple atomic bombs to soften up the landing beaches. Final fact, the atomic bomb attacks are the only reason that Japan exists today as a strong independent nation. The Russians would have invaded Hokkaido. It would still be under Russian rule. We would have invaded the rest of the islands and God knows how that would have played out. On a personal note: My father who fought on Iwo Jima was going to be in the first wave of Operation Olympic. I fully believe he would not have survived that experience. So the atomic bomb is the only reason that my brother and sister and myself are alive. Liberal revisionists can suck on that.

fleiter on April 30, 2009 at 7:35 AM

I recall my father, who slogged through the jungles of New Guinea and Luzon and was poised to be part of the invasion of Japan’s home islands, had a much different opinion of Truman’s use of the atomic bomb than this turd. But that’s the way it always is…human pieces of fecal matter whose idea of putting their life on the line is to stay at a Motel 6 just can’t seem to get their small minds around great issues.

sdd on April 30, 2009 at 7:38 AM

Japan deserved to be NUKED and I’m damn glad we did it!

NRA Lifer on April 30, 2009 at 7:55 AM

Stewart is a moron. Has always been a moron, and even takes pride in being a moron.

The Geneva convention clearly defines what an enemy combatant must do in order to qualify. The must fight for a national army. They must wear an uniform that identifies their allegiance. They cannot use civilians as protection. They cannot purposely target civilians in attacks. There is a LONG list of requirements in the Geneva conventions that entirely disqualify Al Qaeda from being part of them.

Hawthorne on April 30, 2009 at 8:00 AM

Just to clarify my previous post, the Geneva conventions are an agreement that states; if you conduct a civilized form of war then we will treat you with respect. Almost nothing that Al Qaeda does qualifies them as conducting a civilized war.

Hawthorne on April 30, 2009 at 8:03 AM

It is the simple truth that we did not have that much fissionable material in 1945. The bombs that were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were of different designs. When each one was dropped the crews and scientists could only pray that they worked. The invasion of Japan by the United States in 1946 would have made the D-Day invasion of Normandy look like a minor battle of World War II. My guess is that Jon Stewart is not aware of the horrendous war crimes that were committed by the Japanese in World War II. The Chinese, Koreans and others are still pissed-off at Japan for white-washing their crimes of WWII. Jon Stewart is a just another moron who doesn’t know squat about WWII history.

SC.Charlie on April 30, 2009 at 8:36 AM

It’s okay to kick all the Jews out of Gaza or the West Bank, but it’s wrong to kick arabs out of Israel, or out of the West bank or Gaza.

Since when is Judaism/Jewish citizenship an “ethnicity’?

Grow Fins on April 30, 2009 at 8:38 AM

Hawthrone, Japan was not a signature of the Geneva Convention. They treated our captured troops horrifically. And, as you say Al Qaeda is not a nation state and is not bound by the accords that they did not and could not sign

SC.Charlie on April 30, 2009 at 8:40 AM

mindless anti-torture abortion absolutism

FIFY Allah. Still agree absolutism is mindless?

Grow Fins on April 30, 2009 at 8:41 AM

Don’t quit your day job to write history books, Jon.

bluelightbrigade on April 30, 2009 at 8:44 AM

Hawthrone, Japan was not a signature of the Geneva Convention. They treated our captured troops horrifically. And, as you say Al Qaeda is not a nation state and is not bound by the accords that they did not and could not sign

SC.Charlie on April 30, 2009 at 8:40 AM

I agree. The point of my posts were to demonstrate where Cliff May messed up. He only dealt with the application of of the Geneva Conventions to Al Quaeda in a wishy washy and oblique way. He should have been more specific about what the Geneva Conventions really are. They specify how nation states should conduct an honorable war.

May also needed to be more aggressive in drawing a difference between civil law and restrictions on war. In war people kill other people and never get arrested for it. It is clearly a different set of rules. So you cannot apply the normal boundaries of civil law to war in any sensible way.

The Geneva Conventions attempted to codify what is acceptable in war. If we are going to apply the Geneva Conventions to the Al Qaeda prisoners, I am actually fine with that. The rules are clear that you must be wearing a uniform that identifies you as a soldier with markings of nationality. Since these prisoners were not then can be tried as spies in military courts and executed. I am good with that.

Hawthorne on April 30, 2009 at 9:05 AM

Oh, Lebowitz your such a tool!

ObamatheMessiah on April 30, 2009 at 9:07 AM

Ah, a little dem on dem action for ya!

t.ferg on April 30, 2009 at 9:19 AM

Clown nose on / Clown nose off.
I hope his ratings fall like a rock. It is the ONLY thing these guys care about.

RobCon on April 30, 2009 at 9:34 AM

These jerks in the media are so depressing and decadent.

RobCon on April 30, 2009 at 9:36 AM

I love idiots like Stewart that say we should have given a demonstration at sea of the A-Bomb.
Hey genius, there was nearly a military coup when the Emperor was going to go on the radio to surrender because many Japanese military didn’t want to give up despite 2 nuclear bombs being dropped.
There was no way Japan surrenders and had we waited the soviets were poised to invade Hokkaido from the north.

jjshaka on April 30, 2009 at 10:05 AM

By vaporizing innocent women and children, Truman “made or created” thousands of lives.

crash72 on April 30, 2009 at 10:29 AM

The Geneva Conventions encompass a number of “treaties” not just one. Anybody know which ones we signed and which ones we didn’t. I do know that our country didn’t sign any that banned spying on electronic based communications. Just might be kicking a dead horse referring to violations of the conventions when we might to be signatories to those. Yes, the US does as a matter policy adhere to non-objectionable parts of the conventions we have not signed but we are not obligated to adhere to any part of the conventions we haven’t signed.

chemman on April 30, 2009 at 10:44 AM

Stewart’s inner monologue: “Don’t bother me with your point of view. I’m right and you are evil. U.S.A. bad, me good!”

76United on April 30, 2009 at 1:18 PM

God Bless Harry Truman, and the US Navy, the Army and Army Air Corps, and the Marines! Jon Stewart is a little sh*t.

MikeHu on April 30, 2009 at 1:49 PM

This clip should be required viewing by any Conservative who is invited onto Jon Stewart’s show. Cliff May shows us the way. You just have to keep after your point, persistently, and wear the man down. Let Stewart bully and make his outrageous statements, but don’t get distracted. Keep returning to your central point, over and over again, until at last Stewart says “I’m bored”, which roughly translates to “I lost”…

gridlock2 on April 30, 2009 at 2:07 PM

What do people not understand that the Bomb saved Japanese lives!!

The Japanese were training their 9 year olds to fight to the death. We would have had to kill every many woman and child if we invaded, which would have been several million people!

Dadvocate on April 30, 2009 at 2:16 PM

lorien1973 on April 29, 2009 at 10:09 PM

Amen! Those are excellent points.

MoCoM on April 30, 2009 at 6:58 PM

Way to focus on the substance of the interview.


Constantine on April 30, 2009 at 7:15 PM