Jon Stewart's bit on the new nuclear treaty
- Thread starter FUCK THE POLICE
- Start date
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Great, it doesn't embed.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Unfortunately, I cannot see that from here in dear old Blighty, so instead I will post another video of him shafting Bill Kristol over healthcare.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
It's a sad statement about journalism when a comedian is our nations most highly respected journalist.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Sad but true, nonetheless.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Though I know it's for the print media I'd love to see Stewart get the Will Rogers award.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Humor always you to cut to the truth of the issue in a way that being angry and serious all the time does not. Anger makes your bad ideas seem perfect.
Last edited:
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Do you remember a few years ago when FauxNews tried to do their own Right leaning version of the Daily Show?
GOD it was horrible, all the "humor" on that show was anger based and it came off sounding spiteful.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
It's a sad commentary about john stewart fans.
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
Boring. He could have spent more time on the actual treaty, but decided instead to make fun of Fox. Snore.
C'mon man, I know you make the rounds on the rightwing blogs.
Your favorite vice presidential candidate, and half-term governor, weighed in on this....and proclaimed that not only was Obama inviting a nuclear attack on us, but that he probably wouldn't 't retaliate if we were hit:
She sounds like a nuclear policy expert to me.
Last edited:
Whose favorite VP Candidate? That is another that I think the left loves to follow around.
Since you are so sure, please link me up to the post of any "righty" here saying that this is the end of the world. Either that or admit that what I said was exactly that. Nobody here is saying it, because we don't think it is that big of a deal.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
The Daily Show employs TV watchers to sit and watch TV stations (including Fox) all day to pick up on these things. Pretty much every news show does the same thing. It's the only way to get clips like this.
What a sad job though...
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I'd do it!
I'm sure that Rush has people watch some left-leaners to gather stupid clips too. Although I think that probably half of Fox's viewership are these people...
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
You'd watch Fox News for twelve hours a day?
Amazing that no media was slobbering all over this presidents success with nuclear arms reduction! not by 1/3 but by 2/3's
U.S., Russia Agree to Reduce Nuclear Arms by Two-Thirds
By Dana Milbank and Sharon LaFraniere
THE WASHINGTON POST -- Washington
The United States and Russia reached agreement Monday on a treaty cutting both nations’ nuclear arsenals by two-thirds, drafting a three-page pact intended to replace the last vestiges of the Cold War arms race with cooperation between the former adversaries.
The accord is to be signed in an official ceremony when President Bush visits Moscow for a summit meeting next week. It commits the countries to reduce nuclear arsenals to 1,700 to 2,200 warheads each by the end of 2012 -- codifying long-standing pledges by both sides to make wholesale cuts.
“This treaty will liquidate the legacy of the Cold War,” Bush said in brief remarks on the South Lawn of the White House Monday morning. “The new era will be a period of enhanced mutual security, economic security and improved relations.”
The reaction was more somber in Russia, where President Vladimir Putin pronounced himself “satisfied” and his foreign minister, Igor Ivanov, acknowledged the treaty was not as comprehensive as Moscow sought. “It is a realistic document,” Ivanov said.
Analysts in both countries said the agreement essentially is a face-saving gesture for Putin, who insisted on a formal accord. Putin, eager to integrate his economy with the West and to give Russians a sense of national dignity that comes with a formal agreement with the United States, yielded to almost all of Bush’s demands.
The treaty marks a departure from past arms control pacts that, along with their side agreements, often filled volumes.
Honoring the Bush administration’s desire for future flexibility, it contains no requirement to destroy warheads that are taken out of service. It puts no prohibition on the U.S. plan to build a missile defense system. The pact’s expiration in 10 years allows either side to return to any level it desires, and before the 10-year expiration it allows the ability to pull out with 90 days’ notice.
In exchange, Bush granted one concession: having a treaty. The administration saw no need for a written agreement, and preferred any agreement not to take the form of a treaty requiring Senate ratification. Although the administration met Russia’s request, the president did not agree to anything he had not pledged to do unilaterally.
“As the president said, we believed it was not necessary to have a treaty because we are in a new phase of relations,” national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said in an interview on PBS’s “The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer.” “But the president listened to his Russian partner.”
Senate Democrats and Republicans praised the agreement, and indications Monday were that it would face no significant obstacles to ratification.
http://tech.mit.edu/V122/N26/long_126.26w.html
U.S., Russia Agree to Reduce Nuclear Arms by Two-Thirds
By Dana Milbank and Sharon LaFraniere
THE WASHINGTON POST -- Washington
The United States and Russia reached agreement Monday on a treaty cutting both nations’ nuclear arsenals by two-thirds, drafting a three-page pact intended to replace the last vestiges of the Cold War arms race with cooperation between the former adversaries.
The accord is to be signed in an official ceremony when President Bush visits Moscow for a summit meeting next week. It commits the countries to reduce nuclear arsenals to 1,700 to 2,200 warheads each by the end of 2012 -- codifying long-standing pledges by both sides to make wholesale cuts.
“This treaty will liquidate the legacy of the Cold War,” Bush said in brief remarks on the South Lawn of the White House Monday morning. “The new era will be a period of enhanced mutual security, economic security and improved relations.”
The reaction was more somber in Russia, where President Vladimir Putin pronounced himself “satisfied” and his foreign minister, Igor Ivanov, acknowledged the treaty was not as comprehensive as Moscow sought. “It is a realistic document,” Ivanov said.
Analysts in both countries said the agreement essentially is a face-saving gesture for Putin, who insisted on a formal accord. Putin, eager to integrate his economy with the West and to give Russians a sense of national dignity that comes with a formal agreement with the United States, yielded to almost all of Bush’s demands.
The treaty marks a departure from past arms control pacts that, along with their side agreements, often filled volumes.
Honoring the Bush administration’s desire for future flexibility, it contains no requirement to destroy warheads that are taken out of service. It puts no prohibition on the U.S. plan to build a missile defense system. The pact’s expiration in 10 years allows either side to return to any level it desires, and before the 10-year expiration it allows the ability to pull out with 90 days’ notice.
In exchange, Bush granted one concession: having a treaty. The administration saw no need for a written agreement, and preferred any agreement not to take the form of a treaty requiring Senate ratification. Although the administration met Russia’s request, the president did not agree to anything he had not pledged to do unilaterally.
“As the president said, we believed it was not necessary to have a treaty because we are in a new phase of relations,” national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said in an interview on PBS’s “The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer.” “But the president listened to his Russian partner.”
Senate Democrats and Republicans praised the agreement, and indications Monday were that it would face no significant obstacles to ratification.
http://tech.mit.edu/V122/N26/long_126.26w.html
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
NOW THAT'S WHAT I'M TALK'IN ABOUT!
Once again, simple fact based TRUTH exposes Fox Noise and all it's willfully ignorant supporters for the lying POS they are!
Obama's no prize IMHO, but that is no excuse for the crap our local neocon parrots have been calling ice cream.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Ahhh, but the devil is in the details...
According to the administration's own "article-by-article analysis" submitted with the treaty, the effective date of the treaty's only constraint -- a reduction in "operationally deployed strategic" weapons that must occur "by December 31, 2012,"-- lags by a microsecond the expiration of the overall treaty, which remains in force only "until December 31, 2012." The bottom line is the treaty's advertised "two-thirds" reduction in deployed strategic arsenals never enters into legal force and effect. The only substantive provision in the treaty is a sham.
The Moscow Treaty lacks any interim milestones for implementing reductions and assessing compliance. According to the article-by-article analysis: "...Prior to December 31, 2012 each Party is free to maintain whatever level of strategic nuclear warheads it deems appropriate ..." (emphasis added). This same freedom obviously exists on or after December 31, 2012, but for a different reason -- the treaty expires before compliance with the phantom reductions provision can even be assessed.
The treaty's voluntary, self-imposed "limit" on operationally deployed strategic weapons excludes strategic nuclear systems that are being overhauled, but the treaty contains no corresponding cap on the number of deployed warheads that may be claimed to be in overhaul at any given time. The result is that the 1,700- to 2,200-warhead limit, even if voluntarily observed by each side, is easily reversed.
President Reagan's "doverai no proverai" -- trust but verify -- approach is dead. The Moscow Treaty lacks verification and inspection provisions of any kind.
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/moscow/moscflaw.asp
And one must remember that it was the Shrub who suddenly announced in his first year stolen into office that the USA would be pulling out of the 1972 ABM Treaty....he NEVER gave a plausible reason for this....and his "Moscow Treaty" was a really lame substitute.