Jon Stewart interviews John Bolton, and you can smell the fascism

Jon Stewart interviews John Bolton, and you can smell the fascism

www.youtube.com

Jon Stewart interviews John Bolton in a fashion that points out Bill O'Reilly's childish ranting idiocy and Mr. Bolton displays his embarrassing love for dictatorship which he mislabels as democracy. A man so mired in his own skewed universe that the absurdity of it totally escapes him.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.thewashingtonnote.com

This interview sort of sums up how out of touch the people in power can become. They feel completely entitled to play by a different set of rules. By the sound of this interview, I'm guessing that having a conversation with Bolton would be like talking to an alien, and by that I mean that your respective points of view would have zero common ground.

The big problem with out of touch leaders is where they can take us. The current administration is leaving a bad taste in my mouth.
I wonder what our final solution will be?



www.youtube.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I enjoyed that interview, you can see John Bolton had a fair way of putting things but wasn't completely fair.

Just with his comments about the President shouldn't have anyone getting in his way if that's what the people elected, but that's taken to a short degree of fairness - sure that makes sense.

But then HE needs to remember what a democracy is - a place where you can voice your concerns and your opinions. Not somewhere where a person has to shut up because it's not what the President wants to hear.


What a tool.

John Bolton says everyone should be inline with the president.
The presidents appointments are AUTHORIZED BY THE CONGRESS.
That is the cheack and balances.

Pnac scumbag.



[edit on 22-3-2007 by AwakeAndAllSeeing]

[edit on 22-3-2007 by AwakeAndAllSeeing]

Stewart got the typical response one would expect from a superficial, liberal-oriented audience. What Bolton said was correct:

The people voted for a president because they wanted the country to move in a certain direction.

The president should appoint people that help him to move the country in that direction. To do otherwise would be to betray the people that elected him.

That is the essence of democracy.

To appoint one's political enemies as advisors merely invites discord and gridlock.

The legislative and judicial branches are the appropriate checks-and-balances on the executive branch, not the executive appointees.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Stewart got the typical response one would expect from a superficial, liberal-oriented audience. What Bolton said was correct:

The people voted for a president because they wanted the country to move in a certain direction.

The president should appoint people that help him to move the country in that direction. To do otherwise would be to betray the people that elected him.

That is the essence of democracy.

To appoint one's political enemies as advisors merely invites discord and gridlock.

The legislative and judicial branches are the appropriate checks-and-balances on the executive branch, not the executive appointees.

That would be correct, assuming the people that elected him *really* knew what direction he wanted to take. Obviously if the majority of Americans are against the direction he's taking *currently*, they didn't know. Either he lied, or they chose to ignore...which I doubt.

And it's usually the same story with most Presidents. They say they'll do this and that...everything the people want to hear at the time, but how often do they follow through once elected?

It's for this very reason congress is put in place. One with a neutral stance, in order to ensure he follows through with the original direction. Otherwise we end up with another Hitler.

[edit on 22/3/07 by Navieko]

I couldn't smell anything wrong with the Bolton interview.

There is how ever a terrible smell coming from the erroneous thread title.

First, this is a comedy show, so any politician/political appointee is going to made to look bad and Bolton did a great job of handling himself with dignity

Second, anyone who takes their political advice from a comedian/ comedy show
is in deep trouble and probably has trouble making it from day to day.

Roper

Originally posted by Roper
I couldn't smell anything wrong with the Bolton interview.

There is how ever a terrible smell coming from the erroneous thread title.

First, this is a comedy show, so any politician/political appointee is going to made to look bad and Bolton did a great job of handling himself with dignity

Second, anyone who takes their political advice from a comedian/ comedy show
is in deep trouble and probably has trouble making it from day to day.

Roper

You don't see anything wrong In Bolton's view on how things should be ran? Explain.

Lincoln appointed all of his political rivals to his cabniet and we are still here. Clinton appointed Republicans, most notibly sec. of defense. Those are only two examples I can think of but there are many others.

The bush administration is a prime example of why you shouldn't appoint yes men to the offices surrounding you... you lose diversity of opinion and why having everyone around the president agreeing with him all the time might boost his ego, it does the country no good.

Originally posted by Navieko

Originally posted by jsobecky
Stewart got the typical response one would expect from a superficial, liberal-oriented audience. What Bolton said was correct:

The people voted for a president because they wanted the country to move in a certain direction.

The president should appoint people that help him to move the country in that direction. To do otherwise would be to betray the people that elected him.

That is the essence of democracy.

To appoint one's political enemies as advisors merely invites discord and gridlock.

The legislative and judicial branches are the appropriate checks-and-balances on the executive branch, not the executive appointees.

That would be correct, assuming the people that elected him *really* knew what direction he wanted to take. Obviously if the majority of Americans are against the direction he's taking *currently*, they didn't know. Either he lied, or they chose to ignore...which I doubt.

Those are not the only two options. And neither is true in this case.

What happened was, the war in Iraq has bogged down because of bad decisions from the former SECDEF. And a recalcitrant Congress, working with a liberal MSM, has managed to thwart him at every turn.

Bush never promised to bring the troops home by a certain date.

It's for this very reason congress is put in place. One with a neutral stance, in order to ensure he follows through with the original direction. Otherwise we end up with another Hitler.

[edit on 22/3/07 by Navieko]

That's what I said earlier. Our gov't is made up of 3 branches, and that is what forms our system of checks and balances.

Jon Stewart attempted to make the point that the president should surround himself with appointees that disagree with him, to form a system of checks and balances. The unsophisticated audience predictably agreed, and cheered his words. Bolton calmly corrected Stewart, but the point was lost on the audience, and many people here.

you are still wrong jsobecky...far from hindering the president, divers opinions make for a more and better informed chief ex. We are suffering through a president who doesn't want to hear anything else and it does our country no good. You still have not made your case.

Oh, I think I have made my point, grover. Because what I did was to sum up the interview quite succinctly.

Opinions can and should diverge on how to reach a certain goal, not on what the goal is.

[edit on 22-3-2007 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by jsobecky

What happened was, the war in Iraq has bogged down because of bad decisions from the former SECDEF. And a recalcitrant Congress, working with a liberal MSM, has managed to thwart him at every turn.

While I don't have sufficient knowledge of William Cohen and his policies in Iraq during the last president; maybe you can filll me in on this point, the current president has been handed a blank check for the Iraq war. He didn't have to deal with a stubborn congress until the democrats took the majority 4 months ago. The war is now 5 years old. Even still, the Democrats haven't been doing much to thwart any requests from the president. At least not yet. I am having trouble understanding why you would say congress has given him a hard time.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Oh, I think I have made my point, grover. Because what I did was to sum up the interview quite succinctly.

Opinions can and should diverge on how to reach a certain goal, not on what the goal is.

[edit on 22-3-2007 by jsobecky]

That is crap.

You really believe we shouldn't be allowed to disagree with the objectives of our nation's leadership?

Would you have said this in Europe in the 1930s? What about a certain set of British colonies in the late 18th century?

[edit on 22-3-2007 by The Parallelogram]

Bolton is a tool no doubt. I knew that the very first time i saw him speak!

Originally posted by Navieko
That would be correct, assuming the people that elected him *really* knew what direction he wanted to take. Obviously if the majority of Americans are against the direction he's taking *currently*, they didn't know. Either he lied, or they chose to ignore...which I doubt.

I think people knew what they were getting when they pulled the lever. Everyone knew what he wanted to do. I don't see where he misrepresented himself. Wasn't the argument in 2004 that he was too boorish?

And it's usually the same story with most Presidents. They say they'll do this and that...everything the people want to hear at the time, but how often do they follow through once elected?

I think you'd find they carry through quite often. Clinton did, Reagan did, Carter did, Nixon did.

It's for this very reason congress is put in place. One with a neutral stance, in order to ensure he follows through with the original direction. Otherwise we end up with another Hitler.

[edit on 22/3/07 by Navieko]

Congress is hardly put into a neutral place. They serve an important function. Ironically, if anyone should have a problem with someone, they should have a problem with Congress. They have the power to pull the troops out, to stop this stuff. But they don't. They acquiesce to the executive branch. Even now they're too scared of the voters to do what many of them (and us) think is right.

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs

Originally posted by jsobecky

What happened was, the war in Iraq has bogged down because of bad decisions from the former SECDEF. And a recalcitrant Congress, working with a liberal MSM, has managed to thwart him at every turn.

While I don't have sufficient knowledge of William Cohen and his policies in Iraq during the last president; maybe you can filll me in on this point, the current president has been handed a blank check for the Iraq war. He didn't have to deal with a stubborn congress until the democrats took the majority 4 months ago. The war is now 5 years old. Even still, the Democrats haven't been doing much to thwart any requests from the president. At least not yet. I am having trouble understanding why you would say congress has given him a hard time.

My remarks were not about Cohen. They were about Rumsfeld, who, imo, made a handful of very bad decisions that produced this quagmire we are in today.

As far as the Dems giving him a hard time, since they've been in power, they attempted to push through a non-binding resolution regarding the surge, a pullout date, and the war in general. It would have had no legal impact; it was merely an attempt to embarass the president.

Before they were in power, they used filibuster, etc., to thwart his domestic policies. The example that stands out most vividly in my memory is Hillary Clinton standing and applauding at the State of The Union Address, when Bush announced that Social Security reform had not progressed at all.

The Dems had refused to even sit down and discuss ideas regarding reform. That is nothing but partisan bs.

Originally posted by The Parallelogram

Originally posted by jsobecky
Oh, I think I have made my point, grover. Because what I did was to sum up the interview quite succinctly.

Opinions can and should diverge on how to reach a certain goal, not on what the goal is.

[edit on 22-3-2007 by jsobecky]

That is crap.

You really believe we shouldn't be allowed to disagree with the objectives of our nation's leadership?

I hate when this happens, people putting words into my mouth because of their poor reading comprehension skills.

Opinions can and should diverge on how to reach a certain goal, not on what the goal is.

Here is the second part of the sentence again.

not on what the goal is.

emphasis yours.

Please explain how you think I misunderstood that.

[edit on 22-3-2007 by The Parallelogram]

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by Navieko

Originally posted by jsobecky
Stewart got the typical response one would expect from a superficial, liberal-oriented audience. What Bolton said was correct:

The people voted for a president because they wanted the country to move in a certain direction.

The president should appoint people that help him to move the country in that direction. To do otherwise would be to betray the people that elected him.

That is the essence of democracy.

To appoint one's political enemies as advisors merely invites discord and gridlock.

The legislative and judicial branches are the appropriate checks-and-balances on the executive branch, not the executive appointees.

That would be correct, assuming the people that elected him *really* knew what direction he wanted to take. Obviously if the majority of Americans are against the direction he's taking *currently*, they didn't know. Either he lied, or they chose to ignore...which I doubt.

Those are not the only two options. And neither is true in this case.

What happened was, the war in Iraq has bogged down because of bad decisions from the former SECDEF. And a recalcitrant Congress, working with a liberal MSM, has managed to thwart him at every turn.

Bush never promised to bring the troops home by a certain date.

just like every other republican on the planet... blame it on the people you fired... well where are Dick Cheney and Carl Rove??? They were the planners behind this, down to most ex-cabinet members say so... Secondly I voted for Nader, cause I didn't want either one of the evil bastards in office, so no don't assume that YOUR president is in office by a NATIONAL Mandate.
and yes it is true that Bush lead us into a war that was supposedly justified... Now we know there was no justification, and that we will be involved in a war on terror in the middle east indefinitely.... Don't blame the governments lies and swindling on the people...

Surely if it was up to the public that warmongering bastard would be drawn and quartered for the position he put Our Country in.


Coven

Originally posted by jsobeckyMy remarks were not about Cohen. They were about Rumsfeld, who, imo, made a handful of very bad decisions that produced this quagmire we are in today.

My bad, I totally forgot Rumsfeld resigned. Good point.

Originally posted by jsobeckyAs far as the Dems giving him a hard time, since they've been in power, they attempted to push through a non-binding resolution regarding the surge, a pullout date, and the war in general. It would have had no legal impact; it was merely an attempt to embarass the president.

Are you serious? This is what has given him a hard time? A NON-BINDING RESOLUTION! And, they've also only suggested a pullout date, let alone pass a bill through congress and the senate. Hell, they (dems) can't even decide themselves when that pullout date should be. Do you feel sorry for the president that he has had to deal with these "hard times"? I don't get this notion. The guy got a blank check for the war 5 years ago and has been having his way all along and now I should feel bad for him because the Dems passed a NON-Binding resolution? WOW! Even if the goal is to embarass the guy, then tough, he's already embarassed the US in the international community enough.

[edit on 22-3-2007 by LuDaCrIs]