Where You WON'T See Stephen Colbert Speaking Truthiness To Power

We're a lot alike, President Ahmadinejad and I. Sure, he's a good three-foot-six shorter than me, but what the man lacks in stature, he makes up for in rabid anti-Semitism.

 

 

Boooo!

 

 

And, in my humble opinion, his height - or lack thereof - is really a positive, because nothing fuels a tyrant's megalomaniacal, genocidal rage like a good, old-fashioned Napoleon complex.

 

 

Get out!

 

 

And who are we to judge if he gets a little hot-headed from time to time? I know, I know; being a ruthless dictator sounds like a cushy job, but the man lives in a virtual pressure cooker.

 

 

Death to the one-note American comic!

 

 

Think about it: You're responsible for repressing an entire nation and further destabilizing a volatile region of the world - how do you blow off a little steam? You threaten to wipe Israel off the map. Sticks and stones, people! I say, try walking a mile in the man's tiny shoes before you criticize him.

 

 

Kill the infidel!

 

 

Is it getting hot in here, or is it just me?

 

 

...

 

 

*Gulp*

Thanks to AnonymousDrivel for the idea.

UPDATE: It's a cover-up!

 

Comments

[Cheap Bimbo]

FYI

I once dated a guy that looked like President Ahinadinnerjacket. We tripped the light fantastic as a great looking duo; me, with my knit cap, plus my sock and sandal ensemble, and he, swimmingly, in a blazer and slack with black socks and Balance sneakers: the foremost footwear for all semi-successful terrorists.

[AnonymousDrivel]

Now who headlined the Palacial Imams Falafel Feast last year? Was it Al Franken, Whoopi Goldberg, or Margaret Cho? I was so hopped up on aragh-e sagi that it could have been Baghdad Bob for all I know.

PS - JfWD, that's a fine silk purse you have there.

[Jenny]

BRILLIANT!

[M.A.]

Your point is?

As a patriotic American, Colbert should obviously care more about what happens in his country than what happens in Iran. I would say that people who criticize some other country's President more than their own, as many (but not all) conservatives do, have a very weak attachment to their own country.

[Rick]

Hey, by M.A.'s standard, I was really, *really* strongly attached to the good ol' USA from Jan. 1993 - Jan. 2001. Attached, as in the "highest form of patriotism."

Cordially...

[Binah]

Heh. Not as funny as Colbert, but not half bad.

[M.A.]

Hey, by M.A.'s standard, I was really, *really* strongly attached to the good ol' USA from Jan. 1993 - Jan. 2001. Attached, as in the "highest form of patriotism."

Well, yeah, as long as you were criticizing the President on policy grounds and not for stuff that didn't happen ("Bill killed Vince Foster!"). I know I and most progressives criticized Clinton for lots of things -- it was frustration with Clintonism that led to the Nader movement, which in turn gave us the Bush Presidency. (Ooops.)

On the other hand, binding yourself to your President like a cult follower to the Leader is certainly not something a patriotic American should be doing. And if you stop criticizing because the President is of your own party, then I would have to question your attachment to the founding principles of your country.

None of which overrides the point that any American should be more concerned with what his own government is doing than what foreign governments are doing -- so, for example, it is perfectly right for Americans to worry more about torture practiced by the American government, even though other countries torture even more than we do.

[abraxas]

M.A.

You have made absolutely no sense. In the famous aphorism - "that's not writing, that's typing."

According to your logic, all warfare against Hitler and Tojo should have ceased until we could work out the legalities of the internment programs here in the U.S. in the 40's. Nevermind genocide. Nevermind continent-wide destruction. They're only Jews, right?

Nevermind enslavery and immiseration of tens of millions. They're only little brown people, right?

When we said "Never Again" some of us actually meant it.

You Leftist.

[Rick]

On the other hand, binding yourself to your President like a cult follower to the Leader is certainly not something a patriotic American should be doing.

My point exactly in the aforementioned, mostly 1990s period. Do tell that to, oh, say, Nina Burleigh, who wanted to give head to power. Prolly Eleanor Clift, too.

Talk about binding. The Clinton cult was and remains larger than the purported worship of Dubya. I'm grateful for the tax relief, and the strategic offensive against Islamism. Other than that, he's disappointinly like a re-run of Poppy.

Kind of a Patrick-Teddy Kennedy kind of thing, come to think of it.

Cordially..,.

[M.A.]

According to your logic, all warfare against Hitler and Tojo should have ceased until we could work out the legalities of the internment programs here in the U.S. in the 40's. Nevermind genocide. Nevermind continent-wide destruction. They're only Jews, right?

Nevermind enslavery and immiseration of tens of millions. They're only little brown people, right?

I think you've violated at least some sub-form of Godwin's law...

Anyway, the point remains that the first concern of a patriotic American should be with the behavior of his own government. If you spend more time criticizing foreign governments, you've crossed over into fuzzy one-worlder thinking. But that's conservatives: they are mushy multi-culti one-worlders who worry more about torture in other countries than their own. Fortunately, liberals understand the concept of the nation-state.

[John from WuzzaDem]

...many (but not all) conservatives do, have a very weak attachment to their own country.

I swear, that has to be one of the funniest comments ever left on this blog.

I can't say it's one of the funniest comment ever left on any blog, because that prize goes to MA's comment on over at Ace's (site is down, I'll get the link as soon as it's back up):

MSNBC cancelled Phil Donahue's show in 2003 even though it was the highest-rated show on the network...A memo from NBC executives said that they needed to get Donahue off the air because he was too anti-war and they didn't want to be tagged as the anti-war network.

Right. The Donahue Show. And MSNBC is busy flacking for Bush 24/7.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you 'MA': Proud member of the 'reality-based' community.

But all that aside, 'MA', the point that sailed right over your head at warp speed is this: Nothing will happen to Colbert for "Speaking truthiness to power" at the Washington Press Correspondents Dinner, because, contrary to the left's claims that we're living in an Owellian fascist state, anyone can insult the President of the United States and face absolutely no consequences.

It doesn't take "balls" to abandon any sense of decorum or respect for the office of The President in favor of pandering to the audience of a floundering cable show. It takes balls to speak up when you might actually suffer in some way as consequence. Even professionally. That doesn't apply in this case, does it?

[M.A.]

John, like many conserva-bloggers, tends to call something "funny" when he can't refute it, or when it's based on established facts, or when it's based on a true point (conservatives seem to spend more time criticizing the President of Iran than the President of their own country, suggesting they care less about their own country than someone else's).

It doesn't take "balls" to abandon any sense of decorum or respect for the office of The President in favor of pandering to the audience of a floundering cable show. It takes balls to speak up when you might actually suffer in some way as consequence. Even professionally. That doesn't apply in this case, does it?

Sure it does. Even for entertainers. See Chicks, Dixie. Besides which, conservatives talk as if there is no harm that can possibly come to someone from the kind of smear campaigns and relentless invective that is the foundation of the "conservative" movement today. If someone risks being smeared 24/7 on national television as a traitor, an anti-Semite, mentally ill, and all the other epithets national conservatives use against their political opponents, that may not be comparable to the risk of death or torture, but it's a risk nonetheless.

Anyway, by your logic, there could be no such thing as courage in speaking out in a democracy. I don't see how it follows, but if Colbert wasn't "courageous," he was at the very least performing a useful service -- saying things to the President and the Press that these insulated, bubble-dwelling pols and reporters don't want to hear. That's far more useful to our country than complaining about the President of a foreign country, as conservatives mostly do these days.

[abraxas]

M.A.,

"Anyway, the point remains that the first concern of a patriotic American should be with the behavior of his own government. If you spend more time criticizing foreign governments, you've crossed over into fuzzy one-worlder thinking. But that's conservatives: they are mushy multi-culti one-worlders who worry more about torture in other countries than their own. Fortunately, liberals understand the concept of the nation-state."

Good Lord, where to start?

Well, first off, stop questioning WuzzaDem's patriotism.

You've not explained why, following your "logic", Europe would not now, following the successful expansion of the Axis powers in the 40's, be a National-Socialist hell-hole, and the Pacific rim some Co-prosperity enslavement camp.

Nor have you given ANY reasonable explanation why "the first concern of a patriotic American should be with the behavior of his own government." You also fail to back up your assertion that "If you spend more time criticizing foreign governments, you've crossed over into fuzzy one-worlder thinking." You simply use one unproven out-of-left-field assertion to back up another.

Defending free people from annihilation is NOT fuzzy one-worlder thinking, despite what your apparent ideological forebears (Pat Buchanan being one) might think.

The remainer of your comment - an ad hominem tantrum - doesn't even deserve the dignity of a reply.

N.B.: Pointing out the logical extensions of your argument(?) is not a violation of Godwin's Law when the subject under discussion IS the existential threat Israel and the Jewish people face with the reality of a nuclear anti-semitic state. There is, after all, an historical parallel that stands head and shoulders above everything else, and it ain't the "No Dogs or Jews" signs found in Liberal Boston in the 50's. Of course, I could be wrong; I will defer to the judgement of objective parties.

[Watcher]

Mentally Abnormal... you don't seem to think it's a big deal that Ahmadinejad has threatened more than once in no uncertain terms to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, and that he intends to pave the way for the apocalyptic return of the 12th Imam.

Is saying that Bush talks funny and looks like chimp more patriotic than criticizing a foreign leader hellbent on nuclear holocaust?

[Phil Donahue]

Give those fascistic fascists hell, M.A.

And you fascists will sing another tune when I return in all my bobbleheaded liberal glory. Indeed, you will rue the day you nailed me to the ratings cross.

[abraxas]

"Give those fascistic fascists hell, M.A."

Michael Hiltzik, is that you?

[Watcher]

What the hell is Mentally Abnormal even doing commenting here anyway? According to his email address, he's a Canadian... shouldn't he be busy criticizing the government of Canada like a good patriot instead of pestering American conservatives with his socialist twaddle?

[John from WuzzaDem]

MA,

You're even stupider than I initially thought you were. Using an article from FAIR that contains an unsubstantiated claim about Donahue's ratings and referring to that claim as an "established fact"? You already tried that at Ace's, and someone quoted the ACTUAL ratings. Can you read?

Stephen Colbert's audience is a mix of left-wingers and people who don't agree with his politics, but give him a "pass" because they like his comedy. Can you explain how he could possibly hurt his career by criticizing Bush?

If someone risks being smeared 24/7 on national television as a traitor, an anti-Semite, mentally ill, and all the other epithets national conservatives use against their political opponents...

Cite one criticism of Stephen Colbert you've heard on national television that even comes close to what you've described. A link would be nice.

...if Colbert wasn't "courageous," he was at the very least performing a useful service -- saying things to the President and the Press that these insulated, bubble-dwelling pols and reporters don't want to hear.

Isulated, bubble-dwelling pols and reporters? Pot, I'd like you to meet kettle, AKA 'MA'.

[John from WuzzaDem]

What the hell is Mentally Abnormal even doing commenting here anyway? According to his email address, he's a Canadian... shouldn't he be busy criticizing the government of Canada like a good patriot instead of pestering American conservatives with his socialist twaddle?

ROTFLMAO!

You're right, Watcher. After all, "That's far more useful to [his] country than complaining about the President of a foreign country." He really should "be more concerned with what his own government is doing than what foreign governments are doing."

[AnonymousDrivel]

RE: M.A. (May 5, 2006 2:04:01 PM)

Your point is?

Exactly. And you missed it completely which, of course, explains the following:

I would say that people who criticize some other country's President more than their own, as many (but not all) conservatives do, have a very weak attachment to their own country.

Anyhoo, in view of this tangent - how strong is the attachment of those who would pointedly assault a president who, by virtue of circumstance and decorum, cannot refute charges, however valid, scurrilous, hollow, or disingenuous, by advancing tired and aged critique for the sake of creating a spectacle to enhance ratings for one's personal investment, i.e. cable show?

And did Colbert say anything that hasn't been said thousands of times before in other venues? Did he "risk" anything by doing so in front of an audience that regularly makes the same charges but in a more nuanced way? Oh, that's right. They're all in a bubble and had never heard such biting critique before. Good thing Colbert was there to shed some light on such underreported topics and that Bush was forced to take his medicine, nevermind that maybe the patient isn't mortally ill.

This indulgence had nothing to do with speaking truth to power. It had everything to do with being as obnoxious as possible without throwing F-bombs while he pandered just because he could. He was not going to be handcuffed, frog-marched, jailed, and beheaded for advancing his, or his show's producers', view of the world. Of course to liberals, the conservative brow-furrowing and throat clearing criticizing the delivery is pretty threatening. Maybe the real truth to power is a constituency speaking to media, an institution that loses more power daily.

RE: Watcher (May 5, 2006 4:10:53 PM)
...shouldn't he be busy criticizing the government of Canada like a good patriot instead of pestering American conservatives with his socialist twaddle?

Good eye. Does "do as I say and not as I do" ring a bell here?

[tee bee]

Looks like somebody's closer than they'd like to getting those 77 virgins...

More of the Colbert Mideast Tour! More truth to Mullahs! More MA assininery!

[Gordon]

Canada? Heck no, this guy is from the Bearded Spock parallel universe!

Anyway, the point remains that the first concern of a patriotic American should be with the behavior of his own government.

Yeah, we pay no nevermind to our out of control freespending congress. Also note that we never bothered to prosecute anyone involved with Abu Ghraib.

they are mushy multi-culti one-worlders

Hello? Who puts multi-culturalsim over assimilation? Who loves the U.N.? Who thinks we ought to consider "International law" in American jurisprudence? Yep, conservatives.

Fortunately, liberals understand the concept of the nation-state.

I'm just beyond words.

[nolocontendere]

"Mentally Abnormal... you don't seem to think it's a big deal that Ahmadinejad has threatened more than once in no uncertain terms to wipe Israel off the face of the earth..."

Ah, never mind that it was mistranslated, they're threatening the 51st state! Send in the marines!

[John from WuzzaDem]

Ah, never mind that it was mistranslated...

Wow, someone who actually reads Uninformed Comment. Personally, before I took the word of Juan Cole, whose translation skills have been called into question more than once, I'd listen to an Iranian. But, hey, that's just me.

[Jeff H]

Hey, how did THIS sneak in there?

wow - i wondered where inbreds who couldn't understand all the big words on instapundit or lgf scuttled off to when there rocks were turned over - sheesh [or should i say 'heh'.

I'm off to bathe now.

[VinceTN]

"wow - i wondered where inbreds who couldn't understand all the big words on instapundit or lgf scuttled off to when there rocks were turned over - sheesh [or should i say 'heh'."

Wow! Kitty can scratch!

MA seems to have been blasted right off this thread.

A real Leftist wouldn't settle for all this attack talk. A real Leftist would have already embraced terrorism along with their well-tried art of treason to actually overthrow The Bush instead of just effiminately cat-calling at him.

[Watcher]

What are you bathing in... bongwater? Most of us "inbreds" are using bigger words than you are!

You can barely even put together anything resembling a coherent sentence. Between the typos, use of grammar and punctuation that's questionable at best, and apparent inability to find a shift key more than once, it isn't surprising that you couldn't find two brain cells to rub together and come up with a pseudonym to post under. Christ, even the kook who thinks Donahue was the victim of a Rovian plot managed to cough up some initials.

[Yehudit]

"I would say that people who criticize some other country's President more than their own, as many (but not all) conservatives do, have a very weak attachment to their own country."

I think the first concern should be national security, which means sometimes you have to pay criticize the leaders of other countries. The second concern should be ending injustice, in which case you criticize anyone acting unjustly.

Under your heuristic, we would say the hell with Darfur, and everyone who swelled the ranks of all those antiwar marches in 2003 in every country except the USA, should have stayed home. And all the Bush-bashing all over the world should cease forthwith.

[Jeremiah]

>Your point is?

As a patriotic American, Colbert should obviously care more about what happens in his country than what happens in Iran. I would say that people who criticize some other country's President more than their own, as many (but not all) conservatives do, have a very weak attachment to their own country.<

I assumed his point was mainly that Colbert couldn't do that kind of thing in Iran, with a possible subpoint being that Iran is a substantially worse place than the U.S.

btw, great post.

[John from WuzzaDem]

wow - i wondered where inbreds who couldn't understand all the big words on instapundit or lgf scuttled off to when there rocks were turned over - sheesh [or should i say 'heh'.

You mean big words like there?

[AnonymousDrivel]

RE: | May 6, 2006 9:29:21 AM
I'm off to bathe now.

Well, at least we got you to do that. That's worth something. Plus, you're clear for at least another week, so make sure you stop by next Saturday whether you need to or not.

[John from WuzzaDem]

I'm off to bathe now.

[Slaps forehead] That's right, it's Saturday.

[Ohbloodyhell]

> Anyway, the point remains that the first concern of a patriotic American should be with the behavior of his own government.

No, M.A., that is where you are wrong. The first concern of ANY American citizen is and must be **outside threats**.

Only when/if there are NO outside threats can one put the dangers of local government *FIRST*.

This, mind you, does NOT mean one cannot be concerned with the local yahoos at the same time -- it just means that one has to put one's priorities straight.

Your position underlies the overall stupidity of the hoary bumper sticker:
"It will be a fine day with the military has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber, and schools get all the funding they need"
Or some variant thereof.

The imbecility of this is inherently obvious:
IF YOU DON'T WORRY ABOUT DEFENSE, you WON'T need to worry about education. THAT will be the problem of THE PEOPLE WHO CONQUER YOU.

Just because that's not an immanent threat does not mean one need not be concerned with it.

Some of us actually think about our children, knowing as we maturely do, that the world's problems don't end when we do (and no, that does not make "global warming" the most important issue, either, since we also grasp that there are few problems of any significance which lend themselves to simplistic solutions as the so-called "enviromentalists" espouse).

[John from WuzzaDem]

Hey, here's a fun quiz for The Anonymous Literacy Advocate: Go to Technorati and run a search for Stephen Colbert, but misspell his first name, using a 'v' instead of 'ph' - never mind, I'll do it for you:

Click here

Q: How many of the blogs in the resulting list are written by liberals?

A: About 99.99%.

Just sayin'.

[Jeff H]

John, if you want me to, I'll expose M.A.'s psychiatric records...

[John from WuzzaDem]

I think he pretty much did that himself.

[forest hunter]

I for one have had more than an adequate exposure of MA.
And it's senator.

[Paul Fung]

Hi, I'm an uninformed, thread-jacking, bed-wetting leftist who thought that coming here and regurgitating 92 paragraphs of the bullshit I've heard from assholes like Juan Cole would be a good use of my time. Impressed?

I'm also a self-taught geopolitical expert, and in my opinion, "The only way we are going to get out of Iraq is to leave immediately and stop supplying arms and taking sides and let the Iraqis work their problem out themselves as did the Vietnamese."

There might have been a couple of minor skirmishes after we left Vietnam, but I haven't read that far in Wikipedia yet, so I'm not sure. Still, the Iraqis would have to be better off without us there since, "We the invaders are abusing, humiliating, killing and maiming the populace indiscriminately" and "causing miseries, inconvenience and hardship to the population resulting in less services than they had under the previous regime."

I do think we should provide aid to Iraq once we've withdrawn and allowed them to return to the Utopian pre-2003 era, but "All aid should be funneled through the UN." Those guys know how to handle large sums of cash.