An e-mail noted some supposedly great monologue he did on the VA backlog. I'm doubting it's all that great, if it were he wouldn't need to be using the f-word. But I went to The Daily Show to stream and got up to this lie:
Now even the press is messing up. "Hey, look, we found an e-mail where the State Dept demands talking points be edited to reflect political concerns. Oh, I'm sorry. We just looked at it again, it's a Groupon."
Even with a team of writers, he can't be truthful. Jonathan Karl's May 11th story on broadcast television requires no correction. Online, as Howard Kurtz notes, in the 16th paragraph was a mention to Ben Rhodes' e-mail that was inaccurate, that Karl's acknowledged was wrong.
Ben Rhodes was never the story. He wasn't the story here -- see last Wednesday's snapshot where I went over this -- because the e-mail he supposedly wrote was innocuous. He wasn't the story to the media because he's the brother of the president of CBS News.
Victoria Nuland was and is the story. She wanted changes and put it in writing. She wanted changes to avoid questioning.
That was the State Dept. Even with a writing staff, Jon Stewart can't get the facts right and has to resort to the f-word to get laughs. Or in mocking someone's accent. What Senator Mitch McConnell said wasn't funny. That didn't stop Jon Stewart from being the old whore who mocked him. McConnell stated that they didn't know the facts. That's correct. I have no idea which scandal he was talking about, I would guess the IRS, but that is correct.
Jon Stewart then does a lecture about how Republicans shouldn't act like they know what happened when they don't have the facts. Which was the point McConnell was making that Stewart mocked him for.
Stewart wants the press to stand up . . . and do what? What he does?
He is a middle aged comic trying to play to kids. He's Soupy Sales without the realization that it's time to pack it in and go home. Too long in the tooth, too mired in repeating the same dog tricks because he's too scared to do anything else.
So they fudge the facts to get a cheap laugh on McConnell (who appears to have made the same point Stewart would later make) and they fudge the facts so that all the uninformed idiots who wrongly think The Daily Show gives them news can walk away with the idea that Victoria Nuland was wrongly criticized.
Jon or whichever writer decided to include Reliable Sources (CNN) from the weekend left out the part where Howie Kurtz noted that the Nuland point was correct, that the Ben Rhodes point (wrong) was not broadcast, was part of the online text report and Karl had apologized.
So Jon Stewart lied. Knowingly? He's paid too much money for us to waste our time over that.
He got Crossfire cancelled because he went on there and told them they were hurting America.
Jon Stewart hurts America far more than Republican talking head versus Democratic talking head ever did. Jon Stewart presents himself as factual.
But he lies. He cheats the truth to get his cheap laughs.
I knew Jon back when he was sexy. That was a long time ago. By the time he did First Wives Club (all his scenes ended up on the cutting room floor where they belonged), he was already long in the tooth and pudgy. He's Paul Reiser with a hint more of masculinity -- just a hint.
I have no idea where he goes 10 years from now. He's been in the same creative rut for what, 8 years now? He's refused to advance as a stand up which means he's the oldies circuit, getting laughs from old people by doing the same dog tricks over and over. At his sexiest, Jon had a spark that was danger. You didn't know where he was going to go, you weren't sure you could trust him.
It's that spark that led him to The Daily Show and that program has snuffed it out.
He could have been the most important comedian in the country. He had the talent and drive. Instead, he chose to make basic cable a career and, night after night, do the exact same thing, year after year.
Nuland wrote what ABC reported. Ben Rhodes does not work for the State Dept. Jon Stewart got a laugh from a lie. If he any class left, he'd be doing a clarification tonight.
He's real good about telling you how the press got it wrong. Sometimes, he's so good at it because he lies about what the press said.
So how does he reconcile calling out Crossfire all those years ago with the crap he puts on today. He is dumbing down America.
If he had any guts, he'd be ripping apart the talking points for the reason they need to be ripped apart.
The American people had every right to know what happened.
That includes the six month lead up to the September 11, 2012 attack.
Claiming that it's due to an ongoing investigation? That is nonsense.
If there is a bank robbery and the FBI has photos of suspects, they release it to the media.
The notion that the Americans knowing who the attackers were would alert the attackers -- who had already Tweeted to claim credit after the attack -- is nonsense.
That is the big lie.
The administration -- in all of its departments -- refused to tell the American people the truth. Due to the election? Maybe. Due to the secrecy of this administration? Probably.
Equally true, there was no report from US on the ground that there was a protest. None.
They can talk out of their ass all they want. The reality is, if anyone believed that, they should be in front of Congress now answering as to how they got that conclusion when no US personnel in Libya were saying there was a protest.
And why would you have a protest there?
Though Ambassador Chris Stevens was under pressure from Hillary Clinton to have a consulate open in Benghazi by the end of the year, it wasn't open yet. Why would you stage a protest there to begin with? Were you groupies for Chris Stevens that followed the man all around Libya?
Where is the logic there? It never made sense.
Funny man Jon Stewart isn't very funny or factual.
And it's really past time that serious questions were asked. Such as? What the hell was wrong with the intel if it was wrong? If all US personnel are saying no protest, where's the falsehood coming from and how does it work its way into conversations?
Jon Stewart can't touch that because all he is now a trained monkey. He could have been the next Bill Hicks. Instead, he's devolved into the new Merv Griffin. Let's hope Rosewater works out for him because otherwise, like Merv, he'll sit on a pile of money but no one will remember him as anyone important. Hint to Jon, you're a lousy actor because you act 'to the hand.' (He's forever lost in an aside instead of projecting to the audience.) Watch for that in your directing, maintain focus and forward momentum.
And if Jon thinks I'm being harsh, my reply is: I'm dealing with what you did. Wait until Rosewater comes out and you get the same treatment Ben Affleck and Kathryn Bigelow got from the same knee-jerk reactionaries and then you can whine about unfair.
The following community sites -- plus The Diane Rehm Show, Antiwar.com, the Pacifica Evening News and Black Agenda Radio -- updated last night and this morning:
We'll close with this from Patrick C. Toomey's "AP Phone Records Scandal Highlights a Broader Problem: Lack of Checks and Balances on Government Access to Records" (ACLU Blog of Rights):
Last week we learned that the Department of Justice, in an unprecedented intrusion on the work of journalists, had obtained records for twenty telephone numbers belonging to the Associated Press or its reporters, spanning April and May 2012. The telephone records obtained do not include the content of phone calls, but they likely reveal the phone number of each and every caller on those lines for a period of weeks and, therefore, the identity of scores of confidential media sources.
The seizure of these records came to light only because the government has a special set of guidelines that require it to notify any media organization of a subpoena for its records within (at most) 90 days. The AP appears to have learned of the seizure of its phone records, albeit after the fact, only because of this special policy.
The notice given to the AP has generated a healthy debate over the limits on the government’s authority to acquire our telephone and internet records. But what if you aren’t a media organization and, therefore, do not benefit from the special government policy entitling you to notice when the government obtains your telephone or internet records? What information can the government get about you, and is it even required to tell you when it does so? The short answer is: it can learn a great deal about your communications, often without even getting a warrant, and it is generally not required to tell you it’s done so at all.
The e-mail address for this site is firstname.lastname@example.org.
iraq the daily show jon stewart cnn reliable sourceshoward kurtz jonathan karl iraq iraq iraq iraq
iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraqiraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq
iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraqiraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq
iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq