by Scott Creighton
Jon Stewart is still trying to run damage control over the “Million Moderate March” but it seems, like Rand Paul, when confronted with the opportunity to speak off the cuff, it would probably be better if he had just kept his mouth shut.
“You’ve said, ‘Bush is war criminal.’ Now that may be technically true. In my world ‘war criminal’ is Pol Pot or the Nuremberg trials,” Stewart replied.
“I think that’s such an incendiary charge that when you put it into a conversation: ‘Well technically he is.’ Well that may be right but it feels like a conversation stopper, not a conversation starter.” Jon Stewart
Though “technically true”, Jon Stewart seems to think in terms of “the conversation” we are better off not calling George W. Bush a war criminal.
I’m not exactly sure what conversation is worth having if we can’t even address obvious points of fact like this one. Some conversations just aren’t worth having, if you ask me.
Personally, I have to agree with Mr. Greenwald in that certain actions merit extreme condemnation (like impeachment and imprisonment) and to that list I would like to toss out 1. lying 935 times to justify an illegal war which has killed over a million Iraqi people and dislocated about 4 million others, 2. creating false documents (Niger Yellow Cake) like the neocons at the Office of Special Plans did to justify an illegal war, 3. torture, 4. rendition, 5. secret prisons, 6. CIA backed mercenary death squads 7. depleted uranium spread across Iraq … I mean, if these actions don’t merit calling George W. Bush (and several of Jon Stewart’s recent guests) a war criminal, what does? American Everyman
Yes, George W. Bush is a war criminal. Technically, morally, spiritually, figuratively, actually a war criminal. There is no other conversation to have on the subject.
But the most interesting comment Stewart made is not getting a whole lot of public attention and I guess that’s because they are doing their best to re-brand their over-priced Stewart Puppet after the fiasco march exposed him as a servant of the status quo.
“You’ve said, ‘Bush is war criminal.’ Now that may be technically true. In my world ‘war criminal’ is Pol Pot or the Nuremberg trials,” Jon Stewart
This is exactly the problem. You see, in the narrow world of acceptable discourse here in America, there is always a difference between “their” war crimes and ours. Though “technically” they may qualify as such, the intent of war crimes perpetrated by our leaders is always looked at in hindsight as being benign or even altruistic in nature and therefore not of the same criminal intent of someone like Pol Pot or Hitler.
Of course, who really cares what Jon Stewart considers a war-criminal today because like he showed us on April 29 2009, his opinion is subject to change in a matter of hours depending on how many conversations he has with the guy who signs his paychecks.
In April 2009 during a chat with Cliff Mays, Jon Stewart said clearly that he thought Truman committed a war crime when he authorized the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan. Turns out Robert McNamara claimed he and Curtis LeMay thought it was a war crime and that had the U.S. lost, they would both have been tried as war criminals (“Fog of War”). Of course the firebombing of Japan’s wooden cities was yet another war crime, but who’s counting?
But immediately, Jon Stewart came out the next day and claimed his own opinion, spoken from the heart the day before, was “stupid” and that anyone holding that belief was “stupid”.
He was praised by people like Bill O’Reilly for “fixing” his opinion, and the debate was silenced. You see, “serious” people don’t hold opinions like those as the Weekly Standard tells us.
Serious people have debated Truman’s decision for 60 years, but even those who disagree with that decision rarely describe it as “criminal.” Weekly Standard
O’Reilly went on to say that the Japanese didn’t surrender after we dropped the first bomb so therefore Truman had to drop the second one. And that’s all the “facts’ that “serious people” need to know according to Bill O’Reilly and apparently Jon Stewart as well.
But of course, getting to the truth is a little more complicated than simply finding something that Jon Stewart and Bill O’Reilly agree on. The following is taken from William Blum’s article “Hiroshima Needless slaughter, Useful Terror”
`By 1945, Japan’s entire military and industrial machine was
grinding to a halt as the resources needed to wage war were all but eradicated. The navy and air force had been destroyed ship by ship, plane by plane, with no possibility of replacement. When, in the spring of 1945, the island nation’s lifeline to oil was severed, the war was over except for the fighting. By June, Gen. Curtis LeMay, in
charge of the air attacks, was complaining that after months of terrible firebombing, there was nothing left of Japanese cities for his bombers but “garbage can targets”. By July, U.S. planes could fly over Japan without resistance and bomb as much and as long as they pleased. Japan could no longer defend itself.’
… `Japan was militarily defeated long before Hiroshima. It had been trying for months, if not for years, to surrender; and the U.S. had consistently rebuffed these overtures.
… “In his later memoirs, Stimson (US secretary of war) admitted that “no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb“. 
6. “Thus, it was with full knowledge that Japan was frantically trying to end the war, that President Truman and his hardline secretary of state, James Byrnes, included the term “unconditional surrender” in the July 26 Potsdam Declaration. This “final warning” and expression of surrender terms to Japan was in any case a charade. The day before it was issued, Harry Truman had approved the order to release a 15 kiloton atomic bomb over the city of Hiroshima. ”
7. “Finally, we have Gen. Dwight Eisenhower’s account of a conversation with Stimson in which he told the secretary of war that:
Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary. … I thought our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It
was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of “face”. The secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude, almost angrily refuting the reasons I gave for my quick conclusions.  ”
Serious people in Jon Stewart’s world don’t see George W. Bush and Truman in the same classification as Pol Pot or Hitler. Or at least, they obviously do see them in that classification, as was made painfully clear in April of 2009, but they don’t SAY they do in public venues, else they have to perform an act of contrition.
There is always a difference between the war-crimes “they” commit and the war-crimes “we” commit and don’t you forget it. It’s only a matter of time before Jon Stewart has George W. Bush on his show to help him sell his new book like all the other neocons Jon has had on.
Hell, if Bill Clinton endorsed the book, why not have Dubaya on, right?
“George W. Bush also gives readers a good sense of what it’s like to be president, to take the responsibilities of the office seriously, do what you think is right, and let history be the judge.” Bill Clinton
The history according to “serious people” that is. No “stupid” opinions need apply.