I was actually a bit disappointed with the show. Stewart used to just talk to people, and I found it a good way to learn about ‘the other side’ without any shouting. Last night, he jumped on the guest and pretty much ignored the reason why Hitchens was on the show, and the questions Stewart asked were just the same old thing - Why are we in Iraq. That question does not need to be asked in front of the Daily Show audience (Does Stewart really think an answer will appear that isn’t as predictable as the question?), and I think it was only asked to get that audience into the interview. I can understand why Hitchens walked off before the commercial break started - I would be pretty pissed off too if I went on a show to promote a history book and had to spend most of an interview defending my personal politics, and then not given time to explain myself.
I think that was as much Hitchens’ fault as anyone’s since he started spouting the same old shit and tried to “gotcha ya” Jon’s ripping on Bush in the earlier segment. When Trent Lott was on just the night before, it was a excellent interview. Lott came off much better than I expected and actually seemed to understand he has been part of the problem in Washington. It made me consider reading his book.
I was surprised to see Stewart interrupt Hitchens so much, and I hoped we’d hear more about Hitchens’ new book and less of the same-old same-old on Iraq. I’ve read Hitch on Iraq and while I don’t find him at all convincing, if Jon wanted to talk about Iraq he should have given his guest time to make his point. Jon interrupted so much I almost thought I was watching O’Reilly.
I believe last night was one of the (increasingly many) times that I wished the Daily Show was an hour long.
Why the hell is it still only half an hour?
Because it took place in the context of the Iran/Iraq war, after the Kurds rebelled and took Halabja. They weren’t attacked because they were Kurds.
It’s ludicrous to use this atrocity as a justification for an invasion twenty years later – partly because, at the time, there was a certain amount of complicity on the part of the U.S. administration. (To exactly what degree is a matter for debate.) At any rate, at the time, the women and children who died in the attacks were regarded as “collateral damage” in a necessary action – and not just by Saddam.
There was no ongoing campaign to wipe the Kurds out, and not only were the Kurds not in need of rescuing from genocide at the time of lead-up to the current Iraq war, they had been enjoying ten years of self-rule in Northern Iraq, and were very clear that they were opposed to a U.S. invasion, precisely because things were better for them than they had been for over a century. This article from August 2001 sums it up:
Talking about a “genocide” of the Kurds is self-serving and totally contrary to reality. I don’t believe for a second that Hitchens (or the current U.S. administration) is really that ignorant of recent history – they’re just counting on their target audiences taking them at their word. It’s disgraceful.
Not only that, but for the US administration and people like Hitchens, Kurds only seem important when they allow point-scoring against Saddam. The plight of Kurds on the Turkish side of the border, who have often suffered terribly under Turkish rule, is something that American politicians have never cared about very much.
Just to be clear - my question was purely limited to why this is not considered an act of genocide. I personally feel there is no justification for this war.
I thought this incident was considered such. Atrocity or mass murder seems more appropriate. Both you and Diogenes have clarified this point for me. Thanks.
Samantha Powers considers Saddam’s gassing of the Kurds to be Genocide, FWIW. Saddam’s campaign against the Marsh Arabs almost certainly was genocide–the attempt to destroy a culture.
However, as several people have pointed out, it is ludicrous to justify the current war by referring to twenty year old crimes. Especially since, as Powers pointed out in * A Problem From Hell*, Saddam’s actions against the Kurds occured when we still viewed him as a bulwark against Iran. You may recall the famous picture of Rumsfeld clasping Saddam’s hand in a gesture of brotherly love. This occured a few years before the Kurdish Genocide.
We may as well declare war on ourselves for the near extermination of the American Indian.
I suspected they were a philosophy developed by some think tank, but I’ve found no evidence that that’s the case. Anyway, they’re philosophical reasons, not legal reasons, which is what *Diogenes is saying. I think there’s something to the notion that a country forfeits its sovereignty under certain conditions, but I don’t think any of it washes for the invasion of Iraq.
The issue I found most interesting that he brought up, which Stewart seemed to ignore entirely, was that he kept claiming that it is NOT true that many of the people we’re fighting in Iraq weren’t terrorist evil anti-American insurgents before the war started but now are, which I’ve generally assumed was true. An issue I’d like more information on.
I don’t think anyone has pointed out that the only reason Saddam stopped his campaign against the Kurds was because the U.S. maintained a no-fly zone to prevent Saddam from bombing them or razing them with gunships.
In one of Hitchen’s books, he tells about his first trip into the Kurdish region before the current Iraq war. He was driving in a jeep with a Kurd, and the Kurd had a picture of George Bush I taped to the passenger window. Hitchens hated George Bush, so he asked the driver, “Why do you have a picture of that evil man on your window?” And the driver said, “Because without George Bush, we would all be dead.” Hitchens describes that as a transformative moment for himself.
Caught the repeat tonight. I just think Hitchens was *off. * Stewart hit him more aggressively than usual, but he’s gotten heat in the past for his softballs. I figured it was part of a new Tough Jon campaign. Regardless, he gave Hitchens plenty of chance to talk! The guy’s traditionally rapier eloquence was blunted, to say the least. Whereas Stewart was eloquent out the ass, as an uncle of mine was fond of saying.
And the worst possible thing that pompous Brit could’ve done was flee the set the way he did. At least show us you can handle it when you don’t come across as well you’re used to, Chris.
Just purely as a matter of interview etiquette, Stewart absolutely did not give “Hitchens plenty of chance to talk.” No way. He carefully timed his comments so that Hitchens did not have a chance to finish his sentences. Period. It was the worst sandbagging of an opponent who had something to say that I’ve ever seen on the show.
I happen to believe that Hitchen’s four points are nonsense, but they are a better defense of the war than anything coming out of Washington and they would have been said in far better English. Jon was scared of someone who could argue without using stale talking points.
Or something personal was going on. Maybe the blogosphere will have some back story because otherwise this was an inexplicable end to a good week.
For those who haven’t seen the show, it’s online here .
I agree but I also keep in mind that Stewart is not by training or temperament a journalist. He’s heavily motivated to apply his sense of comedic timing in order to entertain his audience. The show really needs to go to an hour, with multisegment interviews and perhaps the more drawn-out pace will let Stewart develop his interviewing technique without trying to rush a laugh every 15 seconds.
I didn’t think Hitchens came off badly, though the interview was really far too rushed and I can see why he’d lose patience with Stewart.
They’re exactly the same points coming out of Washington. What are you talking about? Gassing the Kurds is a specious justification that we’ve heard trumpeted endlessly by the White House. Ditto WMD. Ditto “they harbored terrorists.” The invasion of Kuwait was also cited frequently as evidence of Saddam’s “aggression” and threat to the stability of the Middle East. What points is Hitcjens making that cannot be found on any WH talking points memo?
I wouldn’t be surprised if Hitchens was one of those media people on the White House payroll. It would explain a lot.
I also think that he was given all the time he deserved. I don’t think he was sandbagged, I just think he’s a domineering blowhard who isn’t used to being challenged on his bullshit. If there’s anybody who should have a thick skin, it’s Chris Hitchens. It’s not like he’s some naif who’s never been in a battle before. If he was really as tough as he thinks he is he wouldn’t let himself get pwn3d by a comedian on a fake news show.
As Jon says, “We’ve tried to leave people wanting less, but…”
It’d be twice as much work for everyone, and they wouldn’t have twice as much time to do it.
I don’t mean to be redundant, but it WAS the same defense in a more eloquent package. “You go to war with the President you have” was clever, too bad the crowd didn’t hear it. He did offer some responses to Jon that were new, and some were good. I’d have liked to have heard that. It was still mostly the same. Not great from anyone. Jon repeated a number of comments he’s made before. While many intelligent people continue to opine on this topic, from the Daily Show perspective people it’s kinda stale. Hitchens was bitchy and made Jon look worse by acting like he wasn’t on the Daily Show. (The style may be hard to adjust to for someone who isn’t a regular on talk shows, I don’t know.)
Jon probably should have talked to him about the book.
Although I understand that an hour would lead to a lot more work, just extend the “segments” (like with Steven, etc) a couple minutes each and allow for a decent interview (which we do not have now).
La la la la I can’t hear you you’re wrong I’m not!
Just kiddin.