I like Jon Stewart. He's often quite funny. But it is depressing that this comedian's routines are considered part of the debate on
He takes a whack at the idea of striking Syria:
What is really most amazing to me is that in an issue where President Obama--winner of the Nobel Peace Prize--is interested in attacking Syria (two years after attacking Libya), Jon Stewart manages to turn this piece into a mock-fest on Republicans! Back to George H. W. Bush!
Excuse me? Wouldn't the real story not be that pro-intervention Republicans favor intervening--for similar reasons they had for wanting to intervene in Iraq--but that the anti-Iraq War, anti-Bush is seeking to attack a Baathist regime for using chemical weapons?
Shouldn't Kerry and Pelosi be the targets of his satire for breathing fire on Syria and Assad when not so long ago they praised Assad as someone they could work with rather than slamming Rumsfeld who he mocks for once wanting Saddam's Iraq to beat the mullah Iran and later leading our Defense Department in the invasion of Iraq?
No. Slamming the right is all they really know.
This Onion article was prophetic:
More than a week after President Barack Obama's cold-blooded killing of a local couple, members of the American news media admitted Tuesday that they were still trying to find the best angle for covering the gruesome crime.
"I know there's a story in there somewhere," said Newsweek editor Jon Meacham, referring to Obama's home invasion and execution-style slaying of Jeff and Sue Finowicz on Apr. 8. "Right now though, it's probably best to just sit back and wait for more information to come in. After all, the only thing we know for sure is that our president senselessly murdered two unsuspecting Americans without emotion or hesitation."
Added Meacham, "It's not so cut and dried."
What was once cut and dried is now nuanced. Ask Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean, who back the president's proposed military action. Shut the ef up, indeed.
