Becuase Everything Else Sucks

The Daily Show – Rice and Wolfowitz Make the World a Better Place

By Manila Ryce
Published Wednesday, May 2nd, 2007, 6:02 am
Filed under: Videos: Political, Economic, World Issues, Videos, US Politics

Washington has carried on with the same failed policy in Iraq for over 4 years, yet blames Syria and Iran for the situation. While the Iranian government, Iraqi government, European Union, and American people have all pleaded for dialogue between the countries to reduce the threat of a US/Israeli strike on Iran, the most Bush will promise is that Condi won’t be a complete bitch to their foreign minister if they meet. Apparently, that’s what passes for diplomacy in the Bush White House.

Stewart then moves on to the Wolfowitz World Bank scandal and how the man is able to fuck up everything he touches with his counterintuitive decisions. If you ever have the pleasure of arguing with someone peddling Social Darwinism, who still thinks the rich and powerful are where they are because they’re smarter than the rest of us, I recommend submitting the entire Bush administration and its scandal-ridden appointees as your rebuttal. Stewart exposes just how close these ties are in Washington, and has John Hodgman on to explain exactly what the World Bank does.


download file

Hodgman’s money quote: “No, no, it’s not a conspiracy Jon. It’s merely a secretive global cabal that manipulates governments at whim and is run with no oversight by a man named Wolfowitz… who sits quietly in his office deciding who shall live and who shall die.”


download file

Yesterday’s episode also gave us this clip in which Stewart compared Israeli’s Prime Minister to President Bush. Not exactly a denouncement of Zionism, but it’s the first time I’ve ever heard Stewart criticize Israel. Let’s hope he continues to do so.

Related Posts

5 Responses to “The Daily Show – Rice and Wolfowitz Make the World a Better Place”

  1. Thank you so much for making the Daily Show on Wolfowitz available for download. That’s a great piece.

    Knud Voecking
    05/2/07 at 1:57 pm

  2. Oh Knud, you had me at “thank you”.

    Manila Ryce
    05/2/07 at 8:21 pm

  3. Stewart is hilarious, but he will never mention that Wolfowitz is part of the Zionist Power Configuration, because Stewart himself is a de facto part of it in order to stay on the air!

    By the way, this website refers to Noam Chomsky and ZNET. However, readers should consider the views of Jeff Blankfort’s article, Damage Control, which exposes Chomsky for the Zionist apologist that he is.

    Concrete man
    05/3/07 at 4:42 pm

  4. […] The one-text process feels appropriate because it works best in multi-party negotiations where trust is low. Iranian-Syrian-American relations have deteriorated to such an extent that any conversation is unlikely to be open, honest, or even civil. In short, they are unlikely to be productive. The basis for an agreement, and even just communicating, will be hard to establish. Think that diplomacy is above that? Then why did Bush feel the need to confirm that if Condi ran into her Iranian counterpart, she would be civil? […]

    Negotiating with the Enemy: the case of Iran, Syria and the United States
    05/7/07 at 6:31 am

  5. […] Specifically, I asked: ‘how would you run ME regional talks on Iraq using negotiation theory? Say US, Syria and Iran were willing to talk. What would the process be? What would be the base positions, what degree of flexibility would participants have to enter with etc.’ Below is his great reply, also posted on his blog, here: Back in the 1970’s Roger Fisher used a method called the one-text that helped create the document that became the basis for the 1978 Sinai Agreement between Israel and Egypt. The one-text process is a variation of mediation that is simple, but powerful. Clinton also proposed using the process in 2000 with the Israeli’s and Palestinians.The one-text process feels appropriate because it works best in multi-party negotiations where trust is low. Iranian-Syrian-American relations have deteriorated to such an extent that any conversation is unlikely to be open, honest, or even civil. In short, they are unlikely to be productive. The basis for an agreement, and even just communicating, will be hard to establish. Think that diplomacy is above that? Then why did Bush feel the need to confirm that if Condi ran into her Iranian counterpart, she would be civil? Indeed, this is the main issue: can the parties trust each other? There are enormous opportunities for joint gain… but the domestic risks for each of the actors are also enormous. This is the tragedy of the situation. Each actor (Syria, Iran and the US) is now hostage to the negative perceptions their domestic populations have of one another, negative perceptions their respective elites helped create, foster and nurture. How can Iran, America or Syria cut a deal with a country that have for 20 years been labeled as a mortal enemy? This would be, at best, politically problematic in the US and potentially destabilizing for the Syrian and Iranian governments. […]

    Taylor Owen » Blog Archive » A US-Iran-Syria Negotiation Strategy?
    05/7/07 at 7:53 am

Leave a Reply

Tired of filing this information out everytime you leave a comment at the Largest Minority? Why not register as a user? You also get full access to our forum!

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>