Jon Stewart the hypocrite…

Why aren’t more people pissed off at Jon Stewart recanting his statement that Harry Truman was a war criminal? Stewart seemingly does believe that Harry Truman was a war criminal, but he apologized anyway. Stewart was correct that Harry Truman was a war criminal, but he apologized anyway. If that’s not hypocrisy, then what is?

I can’t possibly believe that they forced his hand in recanting. I can’t possibly believe that Comedy Central was so bothered in that little statement that they forced him to apologize. He did this of his own will!

What Harry Truman ordered was a criminal act of genocide which killed 220,000 innocent men, women and children (about half during the event itself, and the other half over a period of years) through a weapon of mass destruction whose terrific nature defies the imagination. If any moral statement at all could be called basic, humane, compassionate, reasonable, rational, then it must be the statement that Truman’s actions were evil and criminal. I certainly wouldn’t take anyone seriously who did not agree with that statement. And yet Stewart just called a basic principle of morality “stupid” in the name of his hypocrisy.

Who can take this asshole liberal weakling Jon Stewart seriously after this, if he can’t even make a basic moral statement like “genocide is criminal” without recanting? He has nothing to say to anyone, no high ground on anything whatsoever. I am disgusted right now.

But it just goes to show once again that political discourse does not exist in the mainstream. It’s a sham. If someone as far on the margins as Stewart still can’t get himself to admit something so obvious and simple, then there’s nothing for us in the mainstream media.

Also see Jon Stewart: Wimp, Wuss, Moral Coward

14 thoughts on “Jon Stewart the hypocrite…

  1. […] Jon Stewart the Hypocrite by Francois Tremblay […]

  2. rmangum May 3, 2009 at 15:59

    Of course the Right totally lost their shit over this. You must not question the wisdom of any action taken by the U.S. in the course of fighting the One Good War. I saw Bill O’Reilly say that this was a commonly held opinion on the Left. Not common enough I’m afraid. And if O’Reilly was aware of the world outside Neoconland he would know that it’s an opinion not unheard of on the Right, either.

    Incidentally, Tim McVeigh (our own homegrown Bin Laden) explained that he never apologized about the innocents he killed in the Murrah Building because Truman never apologized for the innocents he slaughtered either.

  3. Andrew May 3, 2009 at 19:33

    I missed this one (I haven’t watched the Daily Show since the summer).

    I surprised someone managed to call Truman a war criminal on network TV, period.

  4. theconverted May 4, 2009 at 11:00

    I’m guessing there were some phone calls from some lawyers involved – the Truman family perhaps. I saw the apology and it seemed contrived. Later in the show he mentioned he needed to be careful in cased he was “forced to apologize again”.

    He probably didn’t believe it strongly enough to go to the mat on it…


  5. David Gendron May 4, 2009 at 15:14

    100% agree with you on this one, François!

  6. Francois Tremblay May 4, 2009 at 16:05

    “He probably didn’t believe it strongly enough to go to the mat on it…”

    Then he’s merely a coward who can’t stand for anything…

  7. theconverted May 5, 2009 at 09:32

    “Then he’s merely a coward who can’t stand for anything…”


  8. Jock May 6, 2009 at 00:27

    Stewart just bowed to political pressure. If you would check your facts you’d know that Truman was in fact a Democrat. A Democrat….guilty of acts of genocide? Surely not….how politically incorrect.

  9. Francois Tremblay May 6, 2009 at 00:36

    Everyone thinks their side couldn’t commit acts of genocide. That’s why the neo-nazis are so frantic in denying the Holocaust. I explained this in a previous entry.

  10. Aaron Kinney May 6, 2009 at 17:13

    Furthermore, if the person IS from our side, then they could not POSSIBLY have committed genocide, no matter what actions they took.

    Its not genocide when we do it!

  11. […] Then Stewart puts forth the notion which really lights my fuckin’ fuse and causes me to wax apoplectic. To wit: in a democracy, losing your liberties and being mulcted to fund projects of which you morally disapprove is not tyranny, it’s just “losing”, so shut up and take it. Well, do you think Stewart will have the consistency and conviction to tell that to the opponents of California’s Proposition 8? To ask the question is to answer it. The fact is that now the liberals get to be the ones to say “love it or leave it”, and they’re glorying in the fact. This is revenge, mutherfuckas! The central question in politics, according to Lenin, was “Who, Whom?”, or who does what to whom. It certainly seems to be the main concern of two-party democracy. If the other guy wins, just bide your time and prepare to give some back: that’s freedom! (Will Grigg has an excellent article on this aspect on the conservative side called “Limbaugh Leninism“.) But what if your point of view isn’t represented by either party? Blank Out, as Ayn Rand used to say. Even Bush’s whole slate of abuses of the constitution Stewart refuses to call tyranny. “That’s not tyranny, it’s democracy.” I can’t help but notice, John that you include the invasion of Iraq on the list, and while I’m sure you mean that it wasn’t tyranny for U.S. citizens, you might want to think about whether the Iraqi’s find it to be tyranny or democracy. They didn’t get a chance to vote on it, after all. But then, neither did we. I picture U.S. helicopter dropping flyers on Basra and Fallujah saying “This is not tyranny, it is democracy- John Stewart”. Get the point? Well, what do you expect from the guy who made a bold stand by calling Harry Truman a war criminal and then took it all back. […]

  12. Jilm May 14, 2009 at 02:37

    Truman being a war criminal, maybe. Guilty of genocide, not so much.

  13. Francois Tremblay May 14, 2009 at 03:00

    the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: