Love him or hate him, Stewart’s show needs to be expanded to an hour.

Kudos to Rumsfeld for going on Stewart, who is not as smug as usual

I pity the person who calls Rumsfeld a hero, conservative or otherwise.

Interesting insight into a bleak chapter of American history. The deluded leading the deluded. Not even the Master, Stewart, could get Rumsfeld to fess up that he made one of the greatest blunders of recent time. One wonders when justice will be done and these treasonous bums get their just desserts for their criminal acts.

ganymede said:
Interesting insight into a bleak chapter of American history. The deluded leading the deluded. Not even the Master, Stewart, could get Rumsfeld to fess up that he made one of the greatest blunders of recent time.

Again, the “master” needs an hour long show.

ganymede said: One wonders when justice will be done and these treasonous bums get their just desserts for their criminal acts.

Jeebus, if the count would have came out for Gore, his administration would probably suffer the same Jonestown speak the Dub’s endures from this particular flavor of political rhetoric. How different from Dub’s does anybody really think a Gore administration would have been after 9/11? There’s probably a sect out there who still wants to crucify LBJ and Nixon. Move forward.

Rummy > Stewart.

Pablo said:
Rummy > Stewart.

Thought it was a pretty even slug-fest, and I wish I would have been able to see the full battle in its entirety. Stewart’s show often reminds me of classic heavyweight boxing matches where every round but the climatic one is shown. Stewart needs to expand if he wants to tackle such serious subject matter. He’s got the chops for it; kick Colbert to anchor Tosh or whatever.

ganymede said:
Not even the Master, Stewart, could get Rumsfeld to fess up that he made one of the greatest blunders of recent time. One wonders when justice will be done and these treasonous bums get their just desserts for their criminal acts.

You go from “blunder” to “treason and criminal.” I call that accelerated histrionics. “Blunder” just not enough huh? Why don’t you just say you hate him? C’mon show your depth.

Who is Salacious Crumb said:
Thought it was a pretty even slug-fest, and I wish I would have been able to see the full battle in its entirety. Stewart’s show often reminds me of classic heavyweight boxing matches where every round but the climatic one is shown. Stewart needs to expand if he wants to tackle such serious subject matter. He’s got the chops for it; kick Colbert to anchor Tosh or whatever.

The whole interview should be on the Daily Show web site tomorrow. They usually post ones like this in their entirety.

Sure he is a war criminal, but like Colby said he sure is charming!

Pablo said:
Rummy > Stewart.

heh, yeah well Stewart doesn’t have the blood of thousands of people on his hands, I’d rather be Stewart.

I give Jon a D+
Rummy A-
Too much Stewart…not enough Don!
When does Colin Powell respond to Rumsfeld’s statement? Don basically saying in every interview that no one twisted Powell’s arm. He saw the intelligence everyone else saw.

Pablo said:
Rummy > Stewart.

We need you in Afghanistan.

Jon blew it!
Stewart trash talked Rummy for YEARS.
Jon folded like a cheap suit with Rummy in the room!!!

Rumsfeld just showed the same maneuvering skills he displayed to promote his failed Iraq strategy..
He is one slippery bastard and unfortunately Jon is no match for him.

This isn’t Jim Cramer.

Go Rummy. History will get it right….and the libs of today who claim he is a liar will be excoriated.

Scrub said:
I pity the person who calls Rumsfeld a hero, conservative or otherwise.

Rumsfeld is a hero and save your pity for yourself.

Keeva said:
The whole interview should be on the Daily Show web site tomorrow. They usually post ones like this in their entirety.

Like I really want to search out a Rumsey interview. Stewart needs to run a full hour so any member of his audience shouldn’t need to.

He didn’t fail to ‘knockout’ Rumsfeld, he failed to land any punches at all. Intelligence is always imperfect, and conditions and operations never go according to your plans. This is true from George Washington onward…

Stewart does not have the knowledge and capability to attack Rumsfeld because he doesn’t have the expertise and intellect of Rumsfeld. All leaders make key decisions with imperfect information. All Bush or Obama can do is try to get good intelligence, play out scenarios, and update tactics as conditions change.

Stewart came across as a bit childish. Life is complicated, and to pretend otherwise is childish.

At the moment, Rumsfeld is the only one of the W and Big Dick, Donnie and Condi quartet who seems even minimally skilled at image rebuilding. Of course, he has the advantage of showing a bit of honesty in his analysis.

The Real Royal King said:
At the moment, Rumsfeld is the only one of the W and Big Dick, Donnie and Condi quartet who seems even minimally skilled at image rebuilding. Of course, he has the advantage of showing a bit of honesty in his analysis.

What about David Woo. He did pretty good againt Stewart.

lane said:
He didn’t fail to ‘knockout’ Rumsfeld, he failed to land any punches at all. Intelligence is always imperfect, and conditions and operations never go according to your plans. This is true from George Washington onward…

Stewart does not have the knowledge and capability to attack Rumsfeld because he doesn’t have the expertise and intellect of Rumsfeld. All leaders make key decisions with imperfect information. All Bush or Obama can do is try to get good intelligence, play out scenarios, and update tactics as conditions change.

Stewart came across as a bit childish. Life is complicated, and to pretend otherwise is childish.

I have never thought Rumsfeld shared the same degree of culpability as W, Big Dick and Condi anyway. To be sure, Rumsfeld badly, badly mismanaged the invasion and occupation, but in the decision to attack Iraq, he is not the war criminal.

tatboy said:
What about David Woo. He did pretty good againt Stewart.

Yeah, I think you’re right about that.

ImJustThatDamnGood said:
We need you in Afghanistan.

Me or Stewart? You want a Savior, right?

lane said:
He didn’t fail to ‘knockout’ Rumsfeld, he failed to land any punches at all. Intelligence is always imperfect, and conditions and operations never go according to your plans. This is true from George Washington onward…

Stewart does not have the knowledge and capability to attack Rumsfeld because he doesn’t have the expertise and intellect of Rumsfeld. All leaders make key decisions with imperfect information. All Bush or Obama can do is try to get good intelligence, play out scenarios, and update tactics as conditions change.

Stewart came across as a bit childish. Life is complicated, and to pretend otherwise is childish.

Jon Stewart also is generally deferential and at times even accommodating to his guests, regardless of political stripe. Take Bill O’Reilly. Despite all the shots Stewart takes at him, Stewart and O’Reilly are always civil and friendly when sitting together. Stewart didn’t seem to be trying that hard to damn Rumsfeld, and Rumsfeld certainly isn’t going to let himself get tripped up on the Daily Show of all places. Rumsfeld has been practicng these answers way too long for that. Despite how brutal the segments get, Stewart is almost always a polite and respectful interviewer.

Unless you are on Crossfire or have the misfortune of being Chris Matthews.

Should’ve posted the opening stories from last night Colby. Quote of the year from Jon….

“[Beck’s not wrong. And if he was, you’re not allowed to go on his show and tell him anyway.”

We need more conservative partisan shows where the audience claps liked trained seals. Works great for Maher and Stewart.

I agree with Jon. Uncertainty with power is much better.

I am sure most liberals are fretting at how good Rumsfeld comes off here. Even if you dislike him, he hardly looks like the cartoonishly evil person the left paints him as. Even Stewart had to abandon the aggressive interview because Rumsfeld was making so much sense.

And this is from someone who doesn’t care much for Rumsfeld!

Color Me Badd said:
Sure he is a war criminal, but like Colby said he sure is charming!

War criminal? Please quantify this statement. I can tolerate the “blundering and incompetent” charges against Rummy because you can make a case for that, even if I don’t buy it. But war criminal? Leave it to the left to take their positions so far outside common sense ….

Rumsfeld is quick on his feet (or in this case, sitting), no doubt about it. He knows how to redirect a line of questioning or even stop it in its tracks when he desires. When Stewart asked about the administration’s “selling” of the war, Rumsfeld quickly put Stewart on the defensive by calling it “presenting.” Even those who support the war to this day will admit that given the questionable intelligence it had to be “sold.” If it didn’t have to be sold, Joseph Wilson’s criticisms would have been ignored by the administration and the Valerie Plame affair never would have happened.
Rumsfeld had been selling this war long before 9-11. In 1997, Rumsfeld was one of 18 people who signed a letter to President Clinton urging him to attack Iraq. Immediately after 9-11, when the FBI and CIA were already linking al-Qaeda to the attack, Rumsfeld was dismissing that info in favor of Doug Feith’s arguments that Hussein was directly to blame. Feith had been calling for Hussein’s overthrow longer than Rumsfeld!
Rumsfeld will not admit he helped sell the the Iraq invasion, nor will he ever show remorse, because he got what he wanted and he didn’t lose a son or daughter in the war. It doesn’t seem to bother him at all that it cost the lives of thousands of brave Americans, and he never seems to consider that the same result could have been achieved by allowing the Iraqi people take care of Hussein themselves. It was their job to do that, not ours, unless we could be sold that Hussein was a threat to us. We bought the sell-job and paid a high price.

LarryB said:
Rumsfeld is quick on his feet (or in this case, sitting), no doubt about it. He knows how to redirect a line of questioning or even stop it in its tracks when he desires. When Stewart asked about the administration’s “selling” of the war, Rumsfeld quickly put Stewart on the defensive by calling it “presenting.” Even those who support the war to this day will admit that given the questionable intelligence it had to be “sold.” If it didn’t have to be sold, Joseph Wilson’s criticisms would have been ignored by the administration and the Valerie Plame affair never would have happened.
Rumsfeld had been selling this war long before 9-11. In 1997, Rumsfeld was one of 18 people who signed a letter to President Clinton urging him to attack Iraq. Immediately after 9-11, when the FBI and CIA were already linking al-Qaeda to the attack, Rumsfeld was dismissing that info in favor of Doug Feith’s arguments that Hussein was directly to blame. Feith had been calling for Hussein’s overthrow longer than Rumsfeld!
Rumsfeld will not admit he helped sell the the Iraq invasion, nor will he ever show remorse, because he got what he wanted and he didn’t lose a son or daughter in the war. It doesn’t seem to bother him at all that it cost the lives of thousands of brave Americans, and he never seems to consider that the same result could have been achieved by allowing the Iraqi people take care of Hussein themselves. It was their job to do that, not ours, unless we could be sold that Hussein was a threat to us. We bought the sell-job and paid a high price.

I guess you are like the other liberals and the media who forgot all of this:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Just a few of the quotes (yes, these are all Democrats!):

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

“There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

So, as you can see, they all lied. Why didn’t the media call them on their statements?????

Rumsfeld did a good job. Stewey was forgetting that the left was working agianst us and they distorted everything that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. said.

Alz said:
I guess you are like the other liberals and the media who forgot all of this:

Too funny. You bring out a bunch of old quotes by Democrats who were on the receiving end of the sell-job, failing to point out on the bottom of that Snopes link- that “some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them- several…were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention.” Easy for you to overlook that?
Hey, I am the first to admit both sides of the aisle deserve criticism for rushing into the invasion. Amusing that you fail to deny any of my points on Rumsfeld, instead relying on the old “Republicans good, Democrats evil” argument to attack those who were misled by his sell-job.

Well said Larry. As always ill-informed posters ignore all facts that refute their argument and cling to their precious talking points.

I remember when Rumsfeld first said “the absence of evidence does not mean the evidence is absent.” I realized that these criminals would shred the Constitution as long as they could make a buck out of it.

The fact that Rumsfeld talks pleasantly and intelligently in avoiding every tough question shows that the face of evil doesn’t have to ooze with anger, violence and hatred. That’s why good hearted people are always shocked when the kid next door turns out to be a serial killer.

As you pointed out, Rumsfeld was intent on invading Iraq long before Dubya took the presidency. So the motive was always there. The method was broadcast on TV and radio every day, to the point where at one time 2/3 of the population was convinced of the existence of phantom WMDs. And the horrific deed, because it was conducted by our government was legally sanctioned. So technically, Rumsfeld is not a criminal, in the same way that Bush and Cheney were not criminals for outing a CIA agent, authorizing torture and conducting illegal wiretaps.

LarryB said:
Too funny. You bring out a bunch of old quotes by Democrats who were on the receiving end of the sell-job, failing to point out on the bottom of that Snopes link- that “some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them- several…were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention.” Easy for you to overlook that?
Hey, I am the first to admit both sides of the aisle deserve criticism for rushing into the invasion. Amusing that you fail to deny any of my points on Rumsfeld, instead relying on the old “Republicans good, Democrats evil” argument to attack those who were misled by his sell-job.

Not quite. Those quotes were buried. All of the media reports were parroting the liberals – which were acting worse than Al Qaeda.

How often were those liberals cited asked to defend their prior statements? not often. And when they did, they said they were misled – which means they are admitting that they were too stupid to do anything.

The fact is the Left does not like success and the US represents success – so they undermine it when they can. Our worst enemy is not Al Qaeda, but the Modern Liberals/Progressives.

Do you realise how kind and forbearing this dear soul is to sit and not interrupt Jons solliloquys, (and when he does with careful subtlety and respect), He has the patience of a saint. Jon got his clock cleaned by the quiet superiority of an adult. This was better than when John Yoo took him to the cleaners. Jon’s smart, but his weapon of mass babble only works with some of his victims, not this one. I wanted to interject that Secretary Rumsfeld aquitted himself well on the profanity channel, and the profanity channel shall be the better for it. God bless him. (I watched the whole unedited version, It doesn’t get any better for Jon)

Alz said:
All of the media reports were parroting the liberals – which were acting worse than Al Qaeda.

How often were those liberals cited asked to defend their prior statements? not often. And when they did, they said they were misled – which means they are admitting that they were too stupid to do anything.

The fact is the Left does not like success and the US represents success – so they undermine it when they can. Our worst enemy is not Al Qaeda, but the Modern Liberals/Progressives.

As an Independent, I look at the results provided by recent Republican and Democratic leaders with equal disdain. But, even I am realistic enough to realize there always has been and always will be disagreement on issues between Americans in our Republic. And, I am also bright enough to realize that the Republicans and Democrats of our country are Americans. To read what you wrote is mind-boggling, to claim that the 20 percent of Americans who consider themselves Liberals (much higher percentage if you are going after the entire “Left”) are worse than Al Qeada. Wow. There is a lot of anger on Mediate, but your hate reaches a new level of absurdity.
Your statement is hardly worth acknowledging, except to point out just how anti-American it is.

LarryB said:
As an Independent, I look at the results provided by recent Republican and Democratic leaders with equal disdain. But, even I am realistic enough to realize there always has been and always will be disagreement on issues between Americans in our Republic. And, I am also bright enough to realize that the Republicans and Democrats of our country are Americans. To read what you wrote is mind-boggling, to claim that the 20 percent of Americans who consider themselves Liberals (much higher percentage if you are going after the entire “Left”) are worse than Al Qeada. Wow. There is a lot of anger on Mediate, but your hate reaches a new level of absurdity.
Your statement is hardly worth acknowledging, except to point out just how anti-American it is.

I’ve said it here elsewhere, but I am only talking about what i call the deep-down Modern Liberals/Progressives, not the 20% and not the regular Democrat. I am talking about the committed leftist, the ideologue.

If you can spare the time, watch the talk “How Modern Liberals Think” at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c .

It explains the mindset that I am talking about.

One more thing: haven’t you ever wondered why the left and the Right is polar opposites on just about every single major issue? It’s not simple politics and disagreements, but a deep, fundamental difference in belief systems. Try to watch the vid, including the Q&A at the end. Thanks.

Alz said:
I am only talking about what i call the deep-down Modern Liberals/Progressives

Usually I try to ignore the extremists on the left and on the right, but in this case I have indulged you, Alz, and per your request watched some of your Modern Liberals video. It seemed to me to paint everything in black and white, in terms of extremists. He starts off talking about 9-11 and quickly divides the playing field into those who love America and those who hate America. While it may be easier to think in those terms, I think in reality it is far more complex.
In my case, I was a registered Republican when 9-11 happened. I never supported a foreign policy of aggression, but we had been attacked and I wanted revenge, as did most Americans. My president told me Saddam Hussein was responsible, he trotted out a man I respected greatly, Colin Powell, whose argument convinced me an attack on Iraq was warranted. But, since then, I have spent many, many hours reading and researching the subject (no, not just leftist propaganda) and I feel as though I was misled by those I trusted.
Does that mean I don’t love my country? Of course not. Am I sometimes embarrassed by the actions of some of our elected officials, Republican and Democrat? Absolutely.
Our entire conversation here, Alz, started with me questioning Rumsfeld’s disapproval of Jon Stewart’s use of the term “selling” instead of “presenting” the war in Iraq to the American public. I pointed out Rumsfeld had been selling this war long before 9-11. In 1997, Rumsfeld was one of 18 people who signed a letter to President Clinton urging him to attack Iraq. Immediately after 9-11, when the FBI and CIA were already linking al-Qaeda to the attack, Rumsfeld was dismissing that info in favor of Doug Feith’s arguments that Hussein was directly to blame. Feith had been calling for Hussein’s overthrow longer than Rumsfeld!
You didn’t seem to have a problem with those facts, instead you launched an assault on liberals for supporting Bush’s call to attack, and claimed the “deep-down modern Liberals” are worse than al-Queda. What does that have to do with evidence that indicates our knee-jerk reaction for revenge may have been misdirected?
I wonder why Bush ignored requests to look at the Constitution and utilize Letters of Marque and Reprisal in gaining our measure of revenge instead of sending us into an assault that cost the lives of thousands of brave Americans (the dead include Republicans and Democrats and Independents, Alz). Osama bin Laden is still alive and thousands of brave Americans are dead. Does that not bother you, Alz? Am I a threat to your views by questioning the Bush administration’s actions and wanting answers? Am I a threat to your views by asking why the Obama administration quickly backed off of asking tough questions about the war and is now content to extend the conflict in Afghanistan? I don’t think it is unAmerican to question the decisions made by our elected officials.
I’ve rambled in response to your rambling :-) and still believe you have avoided making a defense for Rumsfeld’s denial that he helped sell the Iraq war to the American public.