What makes this even more disturbing is how he concludes his little segment, the eerie way he says "We neeeeeeed another nine-eleven." I am sorry, that's really, really, fantastically offensive. Olbermann caught this and mentioned it on air as well.
I for one think what Jon Stewart said in response to 9/11 was appropriate and from the heart considering the climate of the time, I also hope it's the ONLY time he ever has to speak like that.
Why would anybody debate the need for acts of mass murder?
Reader Comments ( Page 4 of 5)
46. #30 Lizard 944 said, "Bush who is the only president this century who has dealt effectively with terrorists domestically and abroad, ending attacks on our embassies and civilians here and overseas."
Are you forgetting about the current mess in Iraq? How is this an effective strategy?
And, incidentally, how does insulting a total stranger make your point any more valid?
genericusername at 11:07PM on Aug 16th 2007
47. "cmw"
You don't knnow -or can't figure out - what a Christo/fascist is, yet you have the audacity to call someone who disagrees with you "obtuse" or "intellectually dishonest." You're funny.
Isn't it clear to you that Stewart was simply used as an EXAMPLE to ILLUSTRATE GIBSON's POINT? He was using Stewart to make his argument that...
THE REPUBLICAN JUNTA *NEEDS* a terrorist attack on the United States to rally the country behind their "leaders."
Gibson (and apparently YOU) think American lives are less important than your failed political agenda.
Shame on ya.
Randy at 1:29AM on Aug 17th 2007
48. RE: #47 Randy
You're ranting, and ascribing positions to me that I have not espoused. Much as you're doing to John Gibson. It may very well be that Gibson is guilty of the vile position attributed to him here in this post and by many of the comments, but that is certainly not supported by the brief exerpt of his radio show posted here.
As I said earlier, I'm not a fan of Gibson's style. However, the point he was making in referencing Stewart's comments was related to the inconsistency between Stewart's emotional response to the horror of 9/11 and his consistent criticism of what Gibson believes to be an effective response to that event. Debate the merits of Gibson's argument, but don't launch ad hominem attacks based on misrepresentations of what he says.
I've already said I'm not a fan of Gibson's approach to the argument, but it's far more sophisticated than anything you've presented.
I find these types of ad hominem, and dishonest, attacks repulsive, and I think they undermine our democratic system. If you find my attempt to bring the conversation back to a rational level objectionable, I feel sorry for you.
cmw at 2:20AM on Aug 17th 2007
49. Well,aren't you the noble one? Climb down off of that high horse, why don't ya?
You obviously missed the ENTIRE point of the video. The point was that GIBSON feels that the United States (meaning you and me) NEED TO BE ATTACKED to, "bring back that lovin' feeling...."
We "need" to be attacked so that we can all rally 'round the CHRISTO/FASCIST (as contrastd to the Islamo/fascist)agenda. Did I type that slowly enough for you?
As for "adhominem attacks"... What do you call Gibson's assault on Jon Stewart if not an ADHOMINEM ATTACK.
Further, insessant whining from you or anyone else on an intertent public forum smacks of arrogance, condescension and outrighty sissification.
Randy at 5:21AM on Aug 17th 2007
50. Re: Eric Barlow #41. Excellent post. Having seen Jon in interviews, I agree, he is a man of "stunning intelligence". For that,combined with good manners, except to Tucker Carlson, he deserves our respect.
He brings out an interesting point in the clip. Why are those who question the right's policies labeled as traitors or as unpatriotic?
When we said that these aluminum tubes can't have any nuclear purpose we were labeled as unpatriotic for not sticking to the program.
When it is pointed out that Niger had no nuclear relationship with Saddam the same happened.
Its as if they are saying, "Don't bother us with the facts and if you do you are unpatriotic".
But Jon points out that we are all Americans. And I guess we don't need another tragedy to make us aware of that.
Thanks Eric
Steve Seivers at 8:20AM on Aug 18th 2007
51. umm, Willet...because we don't live in America we can't have an opinion on what happens there. There weren't many Americans living in Iraq but that didn't stop the Bush Crime Family from waging an illegal war there. Or the dumb-ass response to France having the unmitigated gall (sorry if unmitigated is too big a word for you) to actually say that we should let the weapons inspectors do their job before attacking (I mean "freedom fries", come on). Fox news is simply the propaganda arm of the current US administration (Joseph Goebbels would be proud). And John gibson is a pompous ass, pure and simple. And you don't have to be an American to have an opinion about that.
Mike Okrainec at 12:52PM on Aug 20th 2007
52. JackG and jobo, GOP, Eltist arrogance at it's finest.
Jon showed humility and vulnerabilty. The twit from FOX, not really a news channel, a Bush luvin' talk station. I suppose he needs someone to defend his lack of leadership. Took him 7 minutes to react to the 9/11 attack. 7 WHOLE FRIGGIN" MINUTES!
My daughter got home 2 hours pre-attack from Manhatten. I have friends that died there. For Fox to actually spew such obscenty is beyond belief!
I am a woman, I am also a kick boxer and would love to run into Gibson and take his slimey ass down.
9/11 was not just an American issue, tears were shed around the world for us. As well, not all that were murdered were NOT Americans.
Peace and tolerance would aid you in your time of severe dementia.
rhodalee at 1:50PM on Aug 20th 2007
53. This proves Republicans in the media want terrorism and acts of terror so they can stay in control. The US or Israel had some knowledge of the 9/11 attacks and likely did not act on it because they wanted this result. Gibson's comments prove Neocon war mongers have an agenda which relishes war and hate and divisiveness. The whole anti-French thing was invented by Bill Oreilly and Fox News. And like Germans under the Nazis - most American's lapped it up.
john at 5:14PM on Aug 20th 2007
54. Please excuse my typo, I meant Manhattan.
rhodalee at 10:43AM on Aug 21st 2007
55. Stewart is an immature tool. He nevers says anything against his close pals on the left; the same things he will make a huge issue when it is a conservative. Anyone could do his show. Colbert is much funnier.He should take his 5'0 smurf body and get out of the business----take the tool bill mahr with him------PLEASE
topdog at 12:23PM on Aug 21st 2007
56. I agree with42 and44---- He is not saying we need another 9/11. BUT do not let that get in the way of going after Gibson( who I personally feel is abit over the top--- perhaps after working with Geraldo on PMSNBC all those years.)Fox leans right. CNN and PMSNBC CBS NBC ABC get their talking points from NY TIMES who get their directly from the democratic party.Remember that when attacking the conservative FOX network.
topdog at 2:11PM on Aug 21st 2007
57. I don't understand how anyone can watch that video and say he's not saying we need another 9/11. He seems to be saying it pretty clearly to me. And it's not difficult to understand why he would want that. He thinks we need to go back to the way things were shortly after 9/11 when everyone was focused on terrorism and people were willing to go along with just about any government policy as long as it was presented as being part of the war on terror. He knows the only way that's going to happen is if there's another attack. I have no doubt that there are conservatives who are hoping we have another attack for that reason, just like there are many liberals who would prefer for us to not be successful in Iraq. And certainly if there was another attack it would help the Republicans in 2008, just like failure in Iraq helps the Democrats. And, of course, it would be nice if we lived in a world where people didn't think about war and terrorism in political terms, but we don't, and Gibson's comments serve as a disturbing reminder of that.
Anyway, as far as Fox News vs the supposedly liberal channels, many of those channels, such as CNN and MSNBC are pretty far from being liberal. Currently the only political opinion show on CNN, as far as I can tell, is Lou Dobbs, and although he's liberal when it comes to economic issues, he's conservative when it comes to social issues. Among other things, he's against comprehensive immigration reform and gun control. Then on MSNBC, we do have one strong liberal with a political opinion show (Keith Olberman) but we also have one strong conservative (Joe Scarborough), so there's a balance. But on Fox News it's just one conservative opinion show after another, with no attempt to counterbalance it with any liberal opinion shows. With the possible exception of the BBC and PBS, there are no news networks that offer a comparative level of liberal programing. And, of course, none of the other channels claim to be "fair and balanced" like Fox News claims to be. I have no problem with there being news channels that are clearly liberal or clearly conservative, what bothers me is when such a channel presents itself as being balanced when it clearly isn't.
bleedingheart528 at 8:47PM on Aug 21st 2007
58. Fox "News" ain't. There is no news emanating out of the Fox propaganda mill, just filler providing the Bushlickers grist for their servile support role in corporate managed media.
The sooner Fox's license is pulled the better: they are a propaganda mill fraudulently posing as a news comentary program which should be sued, at the least, for multiple cases of character assasinations, libel and race-hatred speechifying.
Too bad that the media, as an actual entity, could not flush Fox down the toilet along with the rest of Fox's shit.
Thomas Green at 4:30PM on Aug 22nd 2007
59. Jon Stewart speaks for the majority of the country when he tells jokes. Don't shoot the messenger, understand the message, have dialogue, learn from it, and grow.
Chaplain Nancy Cronk at 5:11PM on Aug 22nd 2007
60. # 57..You claim that Fox shows one conservative show after another. How much of their programing do you actually watch? If you truly watched Fox regularly (which I doubt), you would see a variety of opinions...both left and right. On Hannity and Colmes for example. How is that a conservative show? Both points of view are represented. They have many pundits and political strategists from both sides. Are you going to call Geraldo Rivera a conservative? Or Greta Van Susteren? Does it really bother you all that much that there is one..ONE station that is not completely biased toward the left?
April at 12:51PM on Aug 23rd 2007