In Which I Disagree With Adam Serwer

Adam Serwer has a post up complaining about Jon Stewart's interview last night with John Yoo. Now on the substance of all the things Stewart could have called Yoo on, I totally agree with Serwer's assessment. But I think he missed some of the points that Stewart DID make. Points for which Yoo had no answer. I am posting the second part of the unedited version from The Daily Show's website. In this clip, although there aren't many laughs, I think Stewart put in some good work. The most telling moment to me is when Yoo tries to claim that having terrorist attacks against our country was unprecedented and that is why the Bush administration was justified in looking for ways to torture that would have been otherwise illegal. Stewart pushes back with specific terrorist attacks that had happened in this country and all Yoo can muster in response basically was that 9/11 was bigger. And when Stewart presses him on how many people have to be murdered in order for it to rise to the level where the President overlooks our treaties and goes his own way, Yoo totally tries to change the subject because he knows he has been nailed.

Now maybe the audience missed that point, but I surely didn't. And I guarantee you that Yoo will never get asked questions that hard on the rest of his book tour.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - John Yoo Extended Interview Pt. 2
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Had To Be Said

Make no mistake about it, the real obstacles to getting health care reform passed at the moment are a handful of asshole Democrats. Still watching Senate Republicans lie through their effing teeth every day all day about the bill is really damn irritating. Made even worse so by their enablers in the media who never call them out.

Well Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown has no such qualms about calling a spade a spade.



Fiscal conservative? GTFOH wit dat!

One Of The Best Answers EVAH!

Dan Froomkin was interviewed by "The Economist" whom asked him seven questions. His answer to question number 2 was one of the best I have seen about the state of journalism and what journalists should be doing.

DIA: Do you think the media should strive for objectivity in its reporting?

Mr Froomkin: No. Journalists should strive for accuracy, and fairness. Objectivity is impossible, and is too often confused with balance. And the problem with balance is that we are not living in a balanced time. For instance, is it patently obvious that at this point in our history, the leading luminaries on one side of the American political spectrum are considerably less tethered to reality than those on the other side. Madly trying to split the difference, as so many of my mainstream-media colleagues feel impelled to do, does a disservice to the concept of the truth.

FoxNews Needs A WAMBALANCEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

You know that story that has been floating around all day about the White House attempting to exclude FoxNews from an interview with the new Wall Street "pay czar"? And the other networks standing up for FoxNews?

Yeah, not so much...

Which proves they can't even do a news story even if they are personally involved.

An Exercise In Journalism

If you read one interview about health care reform, you want it to be this one between President Obama and Karen Tumulty of Time Magazine.

Hat Tip To Spencer Ackerman....Again

Today General Odierno appeared on "State of the Union" with John King





Remember my post from earlier this week about the bogus Times of London article saying that General Odierno was resisting the SOFA timeline that Spencer Ackerman debunked? Well Huffington Post has the transcript of the whole interview and here is what you missed from the clip above.

KING: Let me -- let me ask you -- let me move back to a more serious question, and the idea that, in the previous administration and in your service prior to this administration, you were very clear that you thought these decisions should not be based on political timelines; they should be based on conditions on the ground.

I understand you're executing the orders of the commander in chief. I just want to get a sense of, are you concerned at all that the bad guys, the enemy, knows the timeline, too, and they are simply going into hiding, hoarding their resources, gathering their weapons and waiting for you to leave?

ODIERNO: There is always that potential. But, again, let me remind everyone what change was in December when the United States and the government of Iraq signed an agreement, a bilateral agreement that put the timeline in place, that said we would withdraw all our forces by 31 December, 2011.

In my mind, that was historic. It allowed Iraq to prove that it has its own sovereignty. It allows them, now, to move forward and take control, which was always -- it's always been our goal, is that they can control the stability in their country.

So I think I feel comfortable with that timeline. I did back in December. I do now. We continue to work with the government of Iraq so they can meet that timeline, so that they are able to maintain stability once we leave. I still believe we're on track with that, as we talk about this today.

KING: You say you're comfortable with that timeline, sir. I want you to expound on that, a little bit. Because, back in -- I'm holding up a copy of Tom Ricks' book, "The Gamble." It's a fascinating book from the Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post journalist about the war effort in Iraq.

And you told him, in that book -- this is -- he's quoting you in that book. "When asked what sort of U.S. military presence he expected in Iraq around 2014 or 2015, well after Obama's first term, Odierno said, 'I would like to see a force probably around 30,000 or so, 35,000, with many troops training Iraqi forces and others conducting combat operations against Al Qaida in Iraq and its allies.'"

Now, certainly, this was before the agreement with the Iraqi government was negotiated -- and I want to make that clear -- when you made those remarks.

But you have to implement this strategy because it is a signed agreement between the government of Iraq and the United States of America. But do you personally think it would be best that, for the foreseeable future, to leave 30,000 or so behind?

ODIERNO: Well, again, what I would tell you is it really has always been about Iraqi -- Iraqis securing their own country. So the issue becomes, do we think they will be able to do that?

As they continue to improve in the operations they've been able to conduct, I believe that they will be able to do that by the end of 2011.

And so the most important thing for us is to help them now to reduce the risk that will be left with them once we depart at the end of 2011. We will continue to train and advise. We'll continue to assist; we'll continue to conduct combat operations, where we believe it's necessary.

And I do believe, now, that it is probably the right time frame.

KING: And on a scale of 1 to 10, sir, how confident are you, 10 being fully confident, that you will meet that deadline, that all U.S. troops will be gone at the end of 2011?

ODIERNO: As you ask me today, I believe it's a 10 that we will be gone by 2011.

KING: That's a -- that's a bold statement.

I guess King was buying the whole Time of London frame. Glad to see that General Odierno had him stammering over the truth. John King should spend less time reading the Times and more time reading Attackerman if you ask me.

Levi Speaks

I won't editorialize much on this interview that Levi Johnston gave except to make a few points. For one it was a much better showing by him than his appearance on Tyra Bank's show. Two he and his family came off as people you could sympathize with. Three he called Sarah Palin out for calling his child a "mistake" which I thought was AWESOME. And four he out and out called Sarah Palin and her people liars. This will not end well for Sister Sarah, and I have a feeling she will keep feeding this beast.



Watch CBS Videos Online

Cry Me A River

Allen Stanford can't really believe that anybody is going to feel sorry for him after this interview. Man what an EPIC FAIL. Frugally my ass.

President Obama On Face The Nation

President Obama handled himself very well today on Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer but man did it seem like it was an interview for GOPolitico chocked full of right wing talking points. Just a few.

Schieffer: This has really now become your war, hasn't it?

snip

Schieffer: Are you giving our commanders now in Afghanistan a green light to go after these people even if they're in what used to be safe havens in Pakistan?

Schieffer: But you're talking about going after them. Are you talking about with American boots on the ground?

snip

Schieffer: You campaigned on cutting taxes for the middle class.

Schieffer: And yet lately I don't see any middle-class tax cut in the version of the budget that's going through the Senate right now. You have suggested that maybe you'd let the tax cut you put for the middle class in the stimulus bill run out next year. Can you tell us, are you still pushing a middle-class tax cut? I know you said you want the Congress to follow the principles

snip

Schieffer: - a middle-class tax cut. I want to ask you also about the, these bonuses and all that on Wall Street. Congress expressed outrage. You seemed outraged. And then after the Congress, the House passed the bill to get that money back with some kind of taxes on those, on those people, you seemed to throw a little cold water on that.

Schieffer: You said we shouldn't legislate down a banker. Have you now, on reflection, decided that maybe you let that go a little too far?

I guess thats just something we will have to get used to for the next 4 to hopefully 8 years. Anyway here is the video of the interview. Enjoy.


Watch CBS Videos Online