Jon Stewart Rips Obama's Surge Speech: Sounds Like Bush in 2007

This is simply enjoyable. First Al Gore now Obama. I hope Obama can handle the criticism. Perhaps Jon Stewart will be the next victim on the Obama White House media hit list.

I could not embed the video so, it is contained within the news story link.

Comedy Central's Jon Stewart on Wednesday absolutely tore apart President Obama's speech on Afghanistan for being a virtual rehashing of former President George W. Bush's 2007 address concerning a troop surge in Iraq.

In the opening segment of "The Daily Show," Stewart asked, "[I]s 30,000 troops the military equivalent of two Advil?"

From there, Stewart used videoclips to show just how much Obama's speech resembled what Bush said more than two years ago concerning Iraq.

"The Daily Show" host also surprisingly demonstrated how people on both sides of the aisle -- politicians and pundits alike -- hated what Obama had to say

newsbusters.org...

[edit on 3-12-2009 by jibeho]

God I'd kiss that man if I ever had the chance.

In a totally straight way mind you.

Nothing but crickets from Obama's defenders. It must be tough to see their own news icon, Jon Stewart, belittle their President. Just what I expected. Before you know it, MTV will be sinking barbs into Obama's hide.

I just watched that clip again for another laugh...

It was nice for Jon to actually tell the truth for a change.

I'll just reply with a post I made seperate from this thread as it expresses my feelings exactly.
I don't care what Stewart says:

This is something I feel strongly about, we OWE the Afghan people.
During the 80's we armed the Afghans to the teeth to fight the Soviet occupation.
We flooded their nation with arms and money, fiddled with their government and altered their internal power structure for our own ends, namely to oppose the Soviets. When the Russians pulled out, we suddenly lost all interest in Afghanastan, leaving the chips to fall where they may. It wasn't a pretty picture and contributed to the rise of the Taliban.
Fast foward to 9/11 and our invasion. Here we go again. The idea was to get Bin Laden, but Bush and the military blew it, outsourced the operation largly to Afghan locals, Bin Laden escaped to Pakistan and Bush ( in my view ) mistakenly did not pursue him. For 8 years now we have mucked about, fighting the Taliban, accomplishing little ( from our point of view), but majorly screwing with the Afghan people.
Now popular setiment seems to be get out. While I understand the desire to get out, I think we OWE Afghanastan to at least try to provide some stability before we go. The point is not if we should have gone there or not, or about Bush and 9/11.
This would be the second time we have interferred in Afghan affairs, basically wreaked havoc, then turned around and just said "bye"!
No matter what your politics, no matter who is to blame, don't we need to show some decency and commit ourselves to better this nation?
I look forward to any replies, comments, and constructive ideas in this direction.

It makes me feel good to know that at least one "news source" is taking on both sides of the aisle with equal vigor.

reply to post by OldDragger


You just say "stability"....but what does that even mean?

Fact of the matter is that the afghans want us to leave....just like the iraqi's did.

we're no there to help them, or stabilize them, I cant see how thats not blatantly obvious.

We JUST went through all this with Iraq. All the conditions were the same or similar. Anyone who really cares about the afghanis would do what they wish we'd do and just leave. Why dont they seem worried about stability?

reply to post by MikeNice81


I cant really see two sides of this aisle.
You get a guy in office who's supposedly the anti bush from the other side of the aisle, but continues all the same policies.

whats the dif?

Right now I cant see this guy as anything but a 1 term president, problem is, the next guy(or gal) will be the same thing, a conservative who has all the ideas about how to do things different, and yet everything stays the same, with regards to real issues.

The majority of voters in the country must be total suckers to keep buying into this crap.

Originally posted by liquidsmoke206
reply to post by OldDragger

 

You just say "stability"....but what does that even mean?

Fact of the matter is that the afghans want us to leave....just like the iraqi's did.

we're no there to help them, or stabilize them, I cant see how thats not blatantly obvious.

We JUST went through all this with Iraq. All the conditions were the same or similar. Anyone who really cares about the afghanis would do what they wish we'd do and just leave. Why dont they seem worried about stability?

You may indeed be correct, but then again maybe not. i don't see how you can just state this as a given. By stable I mean minimizing the prospect of wholesale revenge by the Taliban and open running warfare of tribal warlords for power. Would it work? Don't know, but I do feel the US has a moral responsibility to be very careful in our withdrawal.
Obama hasn't said what Bush said> Bush cloaked everything in a democracy/freedom curtain of bS. Obama hasn't said any such thing. I think Obama is simply trying to save lives.
Funny that most here constantly gripe about corrupt government, yet are critical when the President acts to try to prevent what could be genocide.

[edit on 3-12-2009 by OldDragger]

[edit on 3-12-2009 by OldDragger]

I was glad to see the show actually disapprove of something Obama did.

I miss the days of them joking about Bush and his cronies, they were so funny, now its just Obama's great Obama's great, nice to see the shows turning it around.



[edit on 12/3/2009 by Alaskan Man]

Well, I don't see the point in this anymore.
It's blatantly obvious Obama is a failure.
And will contradict everything he said further.

Jon Stewart just reminded us of it. (like we need reminding...)

reply to post by OldDragger

By stable I mean minimizing the prospect of wholesale revenge bt the Taliban and open running warfare of tribal warlords for power.

Exactly what kind of revenge could this broke ass group exact, and if you really wanna minimize the chances for revenge a good idea would be to have gotten out along time ago, or not go at all. The sooner we leave the better, the longer we hang out kill civilians, and prop up our own "official" government there the more likely we'll be targeted for revenge.

Tribal warlords have been warring for centuries....It's not the job of the US to put a stop to it.

Would it work? Don't know,

if you don't have a stated goal then "work" is severely lacking in definition. we know this won't work because it didn't work in Iraq either. The media will say the surge there was a good idea, but the country is still unstable, and our troops are still there, and will be forever. Any illusion of stability coming from that country is a result of our troops pulling out of major cities there.

the US has a moral responsibility to be very careful in our withdrawal.

our moral responsibility is to leave period. Being very careful is just code for, lets actually not leave ever.

Oh, one more time before my wife tucks me in.

JON STEWART, HOST: We begin tonight in 2007. Our war in Iraq was going badly. So President Bush proposed a bold new strategy: a surge of nearly 30,000 troops. Flash forward, the war in Iraq seems to have stabilized, but the war in Afghanistan is going badly. This time, the problem will be tackled by a bold, new leader, with the audacity to change, hope, and do what we were waiting for which, YES WE CAN! What shall his answer be?

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I have determined that it is in our vital national interests to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan.

STEWART: What the 30? What, is 30,000 troops the military equivalent of two Advil? No matter what the problem there? What, you got a problem there in Afghanistan? 30,000 troops. If it doesn't work, call my service.

Thats rich!!

Originally posted by OldDragger
I'll just reply with a post I made seperate from this thread as it expresses my feelings exactly.
I don't care what Stewart says:

This is something I feel strongly about, we OWE the Afghan people.
During the 80's we armed the Afghans to the teeth to fight the Soviet occupation.
We flooded their nation with arms and money, fiddled with their government and altered their internal power structure for our own ends, namely to oppose the Soviets. When the Russians pulled out, we suddenly lost all interest in Afghanastan, leaving the chips to fall where they may. It wasn't a pretty picture and contributed to the rise of the Taliban.
Fast foward to 9/11 and our invasion. Here we go again. The idea was to get Bin Laden, but Bush and the military blew it, outsourced the operation largly to Afghan locals, Bin Laden escaped to Pakistan and Bush ( in my view ) mistakenly did not pursue him. For 8 years now we have mucked about, fighting the Taliban, accomplishing little ( from our point of view), but majorly screwing with the Afghan people.
Now popular setiment seems to be get out. While I understand the desire to get out, I think we OWE Afghanastan to at least try to provide some stability before we go. The point is not if we should have gone there or not, or about Bush and 9/11.
This would be the second time we have interferred in Afghan affairs, basically wreaked havoc, then turned around and just said "bye"!
No matter what your politics, no matter who is to blame, don't we need to show some decency and commit ourselves to better this nation?
I look forward to any replies, comments, and constructive ideas in this direction.

You make a great point. If someone needs help, the best way to help them is to kill someone they know but don't like, therefore war. Afghans need help, therefore kill someone, therefore war. Right. Makes perfect sense. I mean helping them build a house or something or sending them a dinner on us can't compare with that... not even close.

And after all, the Taliban is the worst government who has ever lived on this planet. They asked us for evidence Osama Bin Ladin was involved in a crime before sending him over to the US to be interrogated and for that their country was torn to pieces... they deserved it. Questioning 9/11 is the greatest crime there is as far as your credibility and our willingness to kill you as a foreigner is concerned.

reply to post by truthquest


Yeah I think reading my post anyone can see how I said killing was the answer and glorified war.
When you develope a minimum of critical thinking skills come back, I'll be happy to talk to you then.


[edit on 4-12-2009 by OldDragger]

Originally posted by andy1033
It was nice for Jon to actually tell the truth for a change.

ohhh i love that line of thinking

"he tells the truth!" when he bashes a democrat
"he lies his ass off" when he bashes a republican.

Hypocrisy is the most expensive commodity on the internets (errrr....series of tubes)



[edit on 4-12-2009 by Snarf]

Originally posted by Alaskan Man
I was glad to see the show actually disapprove of something Obama did.

I miss the days of them joking about Bush and his cronies, they were so funny, now its just Obama's great Obama's great, nice to see the shows turning it around.



[edit on 12/3/2009 by Alaskan Man]

the show has not been about that at all...and you'd know that if you actually watched.

I never miss an episode...so take it from me - he challenges Obama just as much as he did Bush.

Its not Jon Stewarts fault that bush gave comedians the gems like "nucklar" ... "the decider" ... "Merica" and several other idiot instances where Bush made himself look like a dink.

Its not Jon Stewarts fault that we have 1 year of Obama so far, and 8 years of comedic gold from Bush...

He bashes Obama just as hard, just in a different way.


[edit on 4-12-2009 by Snarf]

Originally posted by OldDragger

Originally posted by liquidsmoke206
reply to post by OldDragger

 

You just say "stability"....but what does that even mean?

Fact of the matter is that the afghans want us to leave....just like the iraqi's did.

we're no there to help them, or stabilize them, I cant see how thats not blatantly obvious.

We JUST went through all this with Iraq. All the conditions were the same or similar. Anyone who really cares about the afghanis would do what they wish we'd do and just leave. Why dont they seem worried about stability?

You may indeed be correct, but then again maybe not. i don't see how you can just state this as a given. By stable I mean minimizing the prospect of wholesale revenge by the Taliban and open running warfare of tribal warlords for power. Would it work? Don't know, but I do feel the US has a moral responsibility to be very careful in our withdrawal.
Obama hasn't said what Bush said> Bush cloaked everything in a democracy/freedom curtain of bS. Obama hasn't said any such thing. I think Obama is simply trying to save lives.
Funny that most here constantly gripe about corrupt government, yet are critical when the President acts to try to prevent what could be genocide.

[edit on 3-12-2009 by OldDragger]

[edit on 3-12-2009 by OldDragger]

Obama would get better results with a surge of 30,000 goats, the afghans can use those..

When in history have the afghans welcomed an occupier? never. As in never ever. They violently reject uninvited occupiers and whatever puppet regime the invaders try to install, always. It's silly to think anything is different this time.

Was there "genocide" when the last occupier left?. No.
Did the taliban follow those occupiers NEXT door?, no... they didn't go next door, but they'll be storming the shores of malibu with nukes to kill soccer moms and blow up your SUV specifically if we pull out!! OMG FEAR FEAR FEAR...lol his speech was an insult to intelligence.

oblablah is just doing what he's told by the international clowns of death he answers to, the only "change" we got was a more articulate better lying puppet than the last one.

There is no reason for us to be scared of cave dwelling dirt urchins 1/2 a world away... history is screaming with examples that afghans don't want anyones way of life but their own, they don't want our puppet, our troops or our way of life anymore than they wanted to live under the russians... maybe they just haven't see team america enough times to realize we are there to save the mf'n day, yeah!! go team!! kill kill kill fight fight win!!

reply to post by GovtFlu


Was there "genocide" when the last occupier left?. No.
Did the taliban follow those occupiers NEXT door?, no... they didn't go next door, but they'll be storming the shores of malibu with nukes to kill soccer moms and blow up your SUV specifically if we pull out!! OMG FEAR FEAR FEAR...lol his speech was an insult to intelligence

Obama said no such thing. but that obviously doesn't matter to you knee jerkers.
Subtlties and changes are not appreciated here, whether is in Afghanastan or Obama, simplification and cliches seem to be the standard response. sometimes things are way more complex than your anti war bumper sticker philosophies can handle.
Have a nice day in black & white simpleville guys!

reply to post by GovtFlu


There is no reason for us to be scared of cave dwelling dirt urchins 1/2 a world away

Hmmm. Nice ugly American racist touch here! Well done GovtFlu!!